With foreign policy barely rating a mention in the election campaign, the strongest indication we will have of the eventual winner’s view on the world is where they decide to go first.

Ready when you are… the government jet. Pic: AAP

Like most elections this campaign wasn’t fought on foreign policy.

Even with the tragic deaths of three soldiers in Afghanistan it was a passing topic. Tony Abbott did promise to dump Australia’s bid for a seat on the UN Security Council and appoint a Minister for International Development. But the closest we got to a genuine debate on our place in the world was one about which island country to our north to send asylum seekers.

In the next few weeks Australia will know for sure who its prime minister will be, but either way it will know very little about what that person thinks about our place in the world.

The symbolism involved in the inaugural foreign trip of a leader should not be underestimated. Their chosen destination often sets the tone for what they hope will be the hallmark of their foreign policy.

Bob Hawke, Paul Keating, John Howard & Kevin Rudd each chose Indonesia – “our closest neighbour” – for their first overseas trips. In Rudd’s case he quickly followed it up with a major swing through the US, Europe (for multilateral meetings) and Asia emphasising what he called “the three pillars” of his foreign policy.

In the US, while President Obama kept with tradition and made his first foreign jaunt to Canada his first major overseas trip was actually to Europe. There he took part in G20 & NATO meetings and delivered a major speech on nuclear disarmament. Surprisingly he didn’t choose Asia despite his rhetoric of being the first “Pacific President” and indeed has only visited the region once, trotting off to Europe five times in the same period instead.

Footage of Julia Gillard strutting the world stage is yet to grace our television screens and newspapers, but nothing solidifies your role as Prime Minister more than rubbing shoulders with other leaders or visiting the troops in battle.

Shortly after her elevation to the top job she neglected to attend the G20 Summit being held in Canada. Admittedly leaving the country would not have been a good look after Kevin Rudd’s travel schedule was much criticised and he became known as ‘Kevin747’. But Gillard shaking hands with the likes of Barack Obama, Hu Jintao, Dmitry Medvedev and David Cameron so early on would have more than made up for any backlash.

Gillard also stood up the Pacific Islands Forum during the election campaign.

While it would have been unusual for the Prime Minister to leave the country during a campaign, I’ve written about how it could have resulted in a foreign policy coup for her by neutralising the asylum seeker debate early on. Even though Port Villa is closer to Canberra than Perth and could have been a simple day trip, she ultimately chose to stay in the country.

Despite this, Gillard recently announced she “would like to think that engagement in our region is what would stamp the Gillard government. I mean, that is where our future lies”. This regional emphasis, coupled with her bungling of asylum seeker negotiations with East Timor, would make that country the odds-on favourite for her first trip abroad if she remains Prime Minister.

Following this expect a quick trip to the United States designed to kill two birds with one stone: meet President Obama who she was meant hold bilateral talks with at the G20, and address the UN General Assembly in late September. The latter will be a test of a Gillard Government’s commitment to our bid for a non-permanent seat on the Security Council which unofficially requires the leader to visit UN Headquarters each year to press their case.

If Tony Abbott becomes Prime Minister we have a much clearer idea where he will go.

In an interview with The Australian during the campaign, Abbott said he would visit “Indonesia first—the plan would be to do a quick swing around the neighbourhood, and the neighbourhood is Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea and New Zealand.”

Surprisingly this doesn’t include Nauru following Scott Morrison’s visit during the campaign, but Abbott went on to say, “Then you would do a wider sweep, depending on logistics—you would have to do China and Japan on the first trip beyond the neighbourhood and you would have to go to Afghanistan very, very quickly. You would have to go to London and Washington but you shouldn’t forget New Delhi. I think New Delhi has been the great absence from Australia’s diplomatic thinking over the last decade.”

Quotes like these show Abbott has clearly thought deeply about where he views Australia’s place in the world going forward: focussing on old ties with the United States and the United Kingdom while engaging with upcoming powers in Asia and being involved regionally.

The quotes also illustrate a high degree of diplomatic prowess and political strategy: stick with tradition and visit Indonesia first, then neutralise the asylum seeker debate in East Timor, head off to China and Japan next without upsetting either by only including one, visit the troops in battle, then the mother country and the all important United States, before a trip to an emerging and often overlooked power like India (perhaps to announce uranium sales).

But Abbott has also pledged to cut-down on Prime Ministerial travel saying he will not be a “Prime Minister of the world and I think you could be confident that I won’t get swollen-headed about my place in the world… I don’t think there is a need for the Prime Minister to be at every international talk fest.”

The problem is that it all adds up.

Besides the customary five or six meetings a year the Prime Minister must attend – the Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC), the Association of South East Asian Nations (ASEAN) & Regional Forum (ARF), the East Asia Summit (EAS), the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the Group of 20 (G20) – there are others like the UN General Assembly (UNGA) and the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting (CHOGM) that are often tacked on alongside a suite of courtesy bilateral visits.

The question for Abbott will be which will he neglect or undermine by sending a lieutenant in his place?

But for both leaders perhaps the most pressing issue in terms of foreign policy is just who to put in charge of it.

Rudd has been reportedly taking soundings for potential staff as Minister for Foreign Affairs and Gillard will be eager to please him and avoid any unsettling by-elections. For the Opposition, Julie Bishop clearly isn’t up to the job and with Joe Hockey confirmed as Treasurer it might be a role well suited to Malcolm Turnbull.

Either way, we will know our foreign policy destination soon enough.

Thom Woodroofe, 21, was the 2009 Young Victorian of the Year and founder of Left Right Think-Tank. He is a frequent commentator on international affairs.

Email: thomwoodroofe (at) gmail.com
Twitter: @thomwoodroofe

12 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Denny Crane says:

      07:44am | 26/08/10

      I would beleive that as well if Tony Abbott becomes PM, that Japan would be high on his agenda early on, this was was not done by Rudd, and deeply offended the Japenese, so we would see Tony Abbott yes make the trip to Japan.

      On Malcolm Turnbull has foreign minister he would handle this job well, but he may be installed as Telecommunications minister, he has vast knowldge in this field and may appease the independents

    • T.Chong says:

      09:01am | 26/08/10

      Yes Denny we cant offend the Japanese. Just dont mention the war. (who cares if their leading politicians honor the war dead , including criminals who perpetrated crimes against Australians) and as for their “scientific’ whaling , least said, the better.
      Now that was easy to appease the Japanese, who next.?

    • Denny Crane says:

      10:52am | 26/08/10

      T.Chong,
      Japan is a major trade partner you visit these countries immediately, which has always been the case except for when Rudd became PM.

      On the whaling, its scientific whaling, and wasnt Rudd going to take the Japanese to the international court of the whaling, or now i remember it was just another empty promise leading upto 2007, a promise he should have kept, and would have been the laughing stock of the business world, with the damage that would have caused to trade, something like the mining tax, yes the labor party, they now how to damage relations like no other.

      They cant even trust each other

    • James1 says:

      04:07pm | 26/08/10

      Did you read the article Denny?  The bit where it says that the last four PMs have gone to Indonesia first?

      The Japanese got upset simply because Rudd visited China on his first overseas tour and not Japan.  They are in decline, and need to adjust to that fact.

      Also, you win the prize for most gullible in thread for your rather quaint belief that the Japanese are “scientifically” harvesting whales.  I guess you also believe that politicians are honest and that real estate agents only have your best interests at heart.  Actually, your naivety is a little endearing now that I think on it.

    • Mark says:

      08:23am | 26/08/10

      ‘While it would have been unusual for the Prime Minister to leave the country during a campaign, I’ve written about how it could have resulted in a foreign policy coup for her by neutralising the asylum seeker debate early on. ‘

      You’re only 21, so I’ll be nice and say that you should have a good read of the caretaker conventions - under the conventions (that have been observed by both parties for decades) such a trip would not have been appropriate. For international meetings (UN etc.) Australia would usually send a public servant and take on observer status, or not be represented at all. It would also not have been appropriate because, during caretaker, the caretaker Government cannot make decisions that would commit an incoming Government, which she woud have done if she did as you were suggesting. Gillard made the right call not to attend.

    • Justin says:

      08:29am | 26/08/10

      Foreign policy nerds (your Greg Sheridan types) over play the importance of foreign policy. The reality is that we’re a small nation & we have little or no influence on world wide policy direction, & very limited influence on regional policy.

      Even in the South Pacific, where we’re a relative giant, our influence is dwindling due to a combination of resentment & Chinese aid. That’s all it takes to blow us out of the game.

      Our politicians are right to concentrate on local issues. We have no real power or influence, so we should stop wasting money trying to cultivate it. Our foreign aid efforts are belittled by every second NGO & the UN, so we should just tell them to **** off then & see how they like them bikkies. We’ve become a whipping boy for every other cause around the world, so instead of throwing money down the toilet trying to buy sentiment, withdraw it & ignore it.

    • Philip says:

      09:51am | 26/08/10

      Justin has put together a very clear understanding of the realities that exist viz Australia’s place in International Affairs.We are not strong enough to have independent thought or influence on anything beyond our shores and we should not be so weak as to do the bidding of other soverign powers.Rudd’s little adventures were all to do with his personal ambitions and nothing to do with projecting Australia as an International so-called middle power that would be respected and listened to.Justin understands that well but so many others don’t.What a waste of energy,as Justin has so rightly said.

    • James1 says:

      04:09pm | 26/08/10

      As a foreign policy nerd I take issue with your claim that Greg Sheridan is a foreign policy nerd.  He is an idealist, and has little understanding of the real, anarchic nature of international politics.  In foreign policy circles, he has as much credibility as Neil James does in defence policy circles.

    • James1 says:

      04:10pm | 26/08/10

      Howard traveled just as much.  Would you say that about him, Philip?

    • Django Merope-Synge says:

      10:08am | 27/08/10

      As a foreign policy nerd, I take issue with your claim that we have little or no influence on world wide policy direction.

      Australia and Australians have long played an important role in international affairs. You probably don’t need the Doc Evatt lecture on who helped draft the UNUDHR. You might need to be reminded of Gareth Evan’s influential role in establishing Responsibility to Protect as a norm in international law.

      I also take issue with the assertion that our aid money is being “[thrown] down the toilet trying to buy sentiment”. I would argue our aid money is [mostly] going where it is needed and saving lives, as opposed to fulfilling some cynical foreign policy objective.

    • Justin says:

      03:10pm | 27/08/10

      Django,

      You’ve reinforced my point - we used to have influence, but we don’t any more. Our near neighbours are all growing up & are beginning to dwarf us, & our actions towards them are being seen more & more as colonial.

      No doubt there are many good things that our aid provides, but if the price for that is constantly being told we’re not giving enough, doing enough, or that we’re not nice people, well then maybe it’s time to show that you shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds you.

    • stephen says:

      11:44am | 26/08/10

      The inflexion of so many Independants, who want so much an emphasis on local matters, probably signifies an ignorance of foreign affairs.
      If any of these three get a sniff of the portfolio, they’ll be wallowing in junkets.

      (One of the problems of Independants, is they’re too often independant.)

 

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter