What would a progressive foreign policy for Australia look like today? Unfortunately, there is no identifiable progressive vision. Labor governments have typically promoted a combination of multilateralism and economic globalization since the 1980s. Both are not viable now.
Today, increasingly warlike great powers are undermining established international institutions.
Russia’s invasion of Ukraine means rapprochement is unlikely anytime soon. Globalization is breaking up, accelerated by Western sanctions against Russia.
Closer to home, Australia’s relationship with its biggest trading partner China has never been worse, while the pandemic has exposed the dangers of long supply chains – a result of yesterday’s economic liberalization.
In this fragmented and dangerous world, Labor has little else to offer. This is partly because Albanese and his older colleagues campaign for “small goals” and offer few new ideas on most things. It also reflects Labor’s fear of appearing weak on national security – a fear the government is trying to play on with its crude attacks on China – even though the parties’ positions are nearly identical.
Nevertheless, there is a global lack of new, progressive foreign policy ideas. work is not alone.
In a new article in the Australian Journal of International Affairs, co-authored with four other colleagues, we argue that the key is “progressive realism”.
Our starting point is a pragmatic, “realistic” assessment of the key dynamics shaping modern international relations. Governments can only provide security, basic needs and sustainable development if they are unswervingly confronted with the realities of world politics. This means paying attention to changing power distributions between states, but also to the contours of global value chains and, for example, the effects of man-made climate change.
This is followed by a progressive second step. Instead of accepting the world as it is, a progressive foreign policy should try to redistribute existing power constellations.
Progressive movements in recent years have focused more on issues of identity and inclusion and not enough on redistribution. This is a mistake. If progressive politics stands for anything, it is for a more egalitarian distribution of wealth and life chances.
Placing a redistributive logic at the heart of order-building activities recognizes that any global order based on an unequal, unjust distribution of wealth, power, and status will be neither stable nor sustainable.
Practice and ethics must therefore go together. Without first assessing feasibility, it is impossible to realize progressive goals. Together these two building blocks form the basis of a “progressive realism”; the basis for a left-of-centre foreign policy agenda.
What would that mean in practice? For example, the recently leaked draft security agreement between the Solomon Islands and China has thrown the spotlight on Australia’s relations with the Pacific island nations. If implemented, the deal could potentially allow China to base ships in the Solomon Islands, 2,000km from Australia.
Although its status is uncertain, Australia should work hard to prevent this agreement, or any similar agreement, from being signed with any Pacific country. It would fundamentally alter and destabilize the security order in the Pacific, putting enormous pressure on Australia’s defense planning.
Nonetheless, Solomon Islands is a sovereign state and Australian politicians would do well to question why their government would even consider this deal. Many Australian commentators have accused Chinese “chequebook diplomacy” and labeled the Solomon Islands a gullible party. However, Solomon Islanders are not “dupes”.
Pacific governments don’t necessarily see the world the way Australia does. While Australia sees China as a global tyrant, Pacific Rim governments see Chinese involvement as a way to give them more leverage vis-à-vis Australia; the hegemon of the region.
As the Pacific’s largest donor, Australia has often been adamant in trying to dictate to the Pacific Islanders how to run their governments and public institutions. Much of the aid also ended up in the pockets of Australian companies and consultants. Many in the region are angry about it. Chinese presence limits Australian paternalism. It has also resulted in Australia pledged more money for infrastructure that the Pacific desperately needs.
While Australia sees China as its top security threat, the Pacific links this threat level to climate change, not China.
Australia’s somber approach to climate change mitigation and disapproval of Pacific climate activism are rife. Admittedly, China is not a prime example of climate change itself, but Australia’s claim to regional leadership has been damaged.
A progressive realist approach would recognize that China will stay in the region because Pacific governments want it there. So, leading in the Pacific does not mean kicking China out, as efforts to do so would likely backfire.
Any global order based on an unequal, unjust distribution of wealth, power and status will be neither stable nor sustainable
Australia must take the preferences and needs of the Pacific countries seriously. It must accommodate, even intervene, with China in areas that benefit the Pacific, and only compete where Australia’s security is clearly at risk, as in the draft deal mentioned above. Australia could also strengthen Pacific sovereignty by supporting governments and civil society’s ability to analyze debt sustainability and increase transparency of Chinese-funded projects.
Australia should also support Pacific countries’ ability to shape regional policy agendas. Continuing to use the Pacific Islands Forum to push through Australia’s security and trade goals only fuels regional resentment. Short-termism should be replaced by a long-term commitment to partnership.
A second pillar of a progressive realistic foreign policy in the Pacific would involve changing Australia’s stance on climate change.
If Australia were to take climate protection seriously, this alone would strengthen its claim to leadership. This could be supported by the allocation of significant financial resources to support climate adaptation, which should be the focus of Australia’s Pacific Finance Facility. This redistributive approach recognizes the immediacy of the deadlines that Pacific countries face to ensure their own resilience, even survival, in a climate-altered future.
Progressive realism provides the means for a long-term vision focused on maximizing Australia’s influence on a range of strategic issues. We do not claim to have all the answers, but Australia urgently needs to engage in a debate on its foreign policy agenda. The left must do its part.
Nick Bisley is Professor of International Relations and Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences at La Trobe University in Melbourne. Shahar Hameiri is Professor of International Politics and Director of Research at the University of Queensland’s School of Political Science and International Studies. You do not belong to any political party