Old ties that secure our future GREG SHERIDAN THE AUSTRALIAN MARCH 08, 2014 12:00AM THE Abbott government is pursuing a new era of intimate co-operation with ideological soul mate governments in Britain, Canada and to some extent New Zealand. It’s going to see us move into the British embassy in Baghdad, and possibly Kabul in Afghanistan, ramp up intelligence co-operation even further, and work on joint projects in aid delivery in Asia. The two governments will also consult intimately on joint strategies to cope with the Edward Snowden intelligence revelations. On Tuesday Foreign Affairs Minister Julie Bishop will lead the ministerial delegation to the Australia United Kingdom Ministerial meeting known as AUKMIN. It is modelled on the annual AUSMIN meeting with the US. It was the brainchild of Alexander Downer, who is soon to replace Mike Rann as Australian High Commissioner in London. Downer, who had some outside help in conceiving the idea, proposed it to a cabinet meeting when Tony Blair was visiting Australia. Blair and John Howard embraced it enthusiastically. However, neither the British foreign policy system overall, nor Blair’s ministerial colleagues, was as keen. The meeting, like AUSMIN, is a 2 + 2 affair, bringing together foreign and defence ministers from both countries, but it proved difficult to get the relevant British ministers to Australia under Labour. It was not until David Cameron’s Conservatives won power and Foreign Secretary William Hague came to office with a desire to rekindle old connections that AUKMIN came to life. Abbott and Bishop are determined to take it to a new level. Bishop, along with Joe Hockey and Scott Morrison, have been the early stars of the Abbott government. Bishop did not always have the best relationship with Abbott but the two are politically very close now. They come from different sections of the Liberal Party and have different natural contacts. But they see that as complimentary rather than competitive. They are joined at the hip now in making a success of the government’s foreign policy. Bishop has impressed DFAT with her work ethic and she has mastered the detail of the countless issues that come across her desk. The deepening strategic embrace of Britain, and to some extent Canada, does not diminish the Abbott government’s priority for Asia. Britain, Canada and certainly New Zealand all have some value added to bring to Asia, but Britain in particular also helps Australia leverage a global presence. With the US, they form the famous five eyes intelligence-sharing club which is the heart of the Western alliance. Australia/Britain ties went through a slightly cringe-prone period in the 1970s and 80s, which only started to trail off in the 90s. In the 70s some Australians still had a chip on their shoulder about the old colonial relationship with Britain. The Brits, aware of this, were almost at pains not to suggest a special relationship with Australia lest they be seen as patronising or condescending. Now both nations are fully engaged, big players in the world. Australia is a big middle power, Britain a small great power. They are near enough in size, and very close in outlook, that they can be of great use to each other. A few years ago I wrote a book about the US/Australia alliance and everywhere I went in research for that book I was surprised to find Britain as a third partner. Most people in both Australia and Britain don’t realise how close the operational, political, intelligence, military , diplomatic and economic partnership really is. At AUKMIN next Tuesday the two governments will sign a joint statement on enhanced diplomatic network co-operation. Already the foreign services of both nations have personnel on exchange with each other and share key diplomatic assessments, including major analytical cables from key embassies. They are especially inclined to do this in third countries where one is much more strongly represented than the other. This new diplomatic co-operation agreement will see intensified co-location agreements, designed to save both nations money. The first big example of this will be Baghdad. The separate Australian embassy there costs something in the order of $45 million a year to maintain. The vast bulk of that is in providing for its security. The plan is for the Australian embassy to move into the British embassy building. This involves renting some space from the British and making a contribution to their security expenses. This can only be done by countries which have a high degree of trust. Canberra is also confident that when it joins the British in such ventures it is joining well-run and secure operations. Something similar may well happen in Kabul. In both cases, this should release some remaining Australian soldiers to leave those countries and mark another definitive stage in Australia’s withdrawal from those long-running conflicts. Bishop is likely to pursue more co-locations in Africa, but this time perhaps involving similar arrangements with Canada and Switzerland. Cameron’s government has a similar approach to aid as that which Bishop has pioneered in Australia, including a stress on aid for trade, and empowering women and girls. Britain wants to do more in Asia. Bishop was impressed with how quickly and effectively the British deployed their military for disaster relief in The Philippines after the recent hurricane. The two countries will sign a partnership agreement on development dialogue. The two governments will also establish a formal dialogue to somewhat mirror the spectacularly successful Australian American Leadership Dialogue. However, this will not seek to cover the entire breadth of the bilateral relationship. Instead it will focus on Asia, and how Australia and Britain see Asia and what they can do, jointly and separately, to foster peace and security. It will be run by the British Ditchley Foundation and Sydney’s Lowy Institute and will have its first meeting in Britain in June. A key subject for Bishop and her counterparts will be how to manage the fallout from the intelligence revelations of former US security contractor, Edward Snowden. To some extent, this mirrors what happened during the Iraq war. Blair and Howard, and their relevant ministers, became exceptionally close in part because they had to manage almost identical domestic debates, and fierce domestic criticism, for their participation in Iraq. Bishop, and Defence Minister David Johnstone will spend a lot of time with the British intelligence establishments. At the political level, strategising on how to cope with the Snowden leaks will figure heavily. Cameron will hold a dinner for Bishop and Johnstone and it will be an important week for Australia in Britain. There will also be areas of disagreement. Bishop, who admires Hague, who has indeed become a globally important foreign minister, disagrees with her British counterpart in his insistence that all Israeli settlements beyond the 1967 borders are illegal under international law. Hague got Bishop’s predecessor, Bob Carr, to sign up to that language the last time an AUKMIN was held in Sydney. This was a departure for Australian policy and Bishop has reverted to the far more sensible formulation that these settlements, and the borders generally between Israel and a Palestinian state, are part of negotiations now under way. There is also disagreement on Sri Lanka, with Canberra taking a less militant line on alleged human rights abuses there and how much these should determine future policy. Canberra believes it is a good thing that the Tamil Tigers terrorist outfit was defeated in Sri Lanka and that the future emphasis should be working with the Sri Lankan government on development. This big, diverse Australia Britain agenda reflects a big and burgeoning relationship, happy with its history, but full of contemporary purpose
Posted on: Fri, 07 Mar 2014 21:28:21 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015