Reshaping Australia's Institutions of Diplomacy

Reshaping Australia's Institutions of Diplomacy

Occasional Lecture by the Hon Alexander Downer, MP, Minister for Foreign Affairs, to the Australian National University, Canberra, 18 February 1998.

Introduction

Ross Garnaut, Tony Low, Frank Castles, Ladies and Gentlemen.

It is a great pleasure to be at the Australian National University, and to have the opportunity to deliver this Occasional Lecture.

Australia's willingness to take on the world, to adapt to our own purposes and institutions the latest technology and the most innovative ideas, has always been a driving force behind our remarkable success as a nation.

But a defining feature of today's rapidly globalising world is that no nation committed to securing sustained prosperity and security for its citizens can afford to rest on its past achievements.

There is no point in congratulating ourselves too much on what we have done in the past - the fact is that we have to do a lot more in the future.

That is why the challenge of reshaping and renovating the key institutions of our national life is greater today than at any time in our history.

I want to address today one of the most important issues in Australia's international engagement - how to ensure that our institutions of diplomacy, and the regional and global institutions of most importance to Australia, meet the challenges of the 21st century.

I want to focus on how to make our institutions of diplomacy more effective in fostering the fundamental values that lie at the heart of Australia's success as a constructive member of the Asia Pacific and beyond.

Above all, I want to emphasise that Australia's national interests are advanced most effectively when our institutions of diplomacy open themselves fully to the extraordinary wealth of ideas available in our wider intellectual life, and focus on achieving practical outcomes for individuals and society.

Part One: Evolution Versus Imposition - The Liberal Tradition

I want to begin with the fundamental principles which should guide our understanding of institutional and social development.

The key issue is whether Government should seek to direct society and its institutions.

Should we try to mould and regulate social behaviour or should we encourage the full flourishing of ideas and a fearless tolerance of diversity with its potential for both genius and uncertainty?

This basic philosophical choice governs our approach to institution-building in Australia and beyond.

It determines whether we believe institutions should be imposed on society or whether they should evolve in more measured, flexible ways to meet real needs.

For myself, I am a strong believer in the liberal tradition of social development.

I draw my intellectual heritage from Edmund Burke - that is, a liberal commitment to a plurality of ideas and a belief that there is no one way of social development.

The hallmark of this philosophy is a belief in genuine innovation and individual initiative which draws its enduring authority from democratic freedoms and diversity.

At the institutional level, the corollary of this belief is the clear rejection of a monolithic state and rigid institutions pursuing a single hegemonic vision which is to be followed by society.

One of the starkest lessons of the 20th century is that the pursuit of this sort of hegemonic vision undermines equality of opportunity and diversity, and - in the end - destroys democratic freedoms.

For example, state-directed or command economies across the globe proved unable to supply the needs and the standards of living that their citizens expected.

As technology and communications advanced, it became more difficult for these state-imposed institutions and ideologies to hide their inherent inflexibility and chronic failure.

By contrast, I believe that institutions are most effective and durable when they evolve pragmatically in response to social development and need. As Edmund Burke said, reflecting on the French Revolution, "our patience will achieve more than our force."

Fundamentally, events should shape the way we build institutions, rather than institutions dictating the course of events.

That is the only way to ensure that institutions embody the aspirations of a people and advance in tandem with popular expectations and needs. And it gives us the best chance of creating lasting institutions which deliver realistic outcomes.

The flexibility and durability displayed by the Australian Constitution since 1901 - and the outstanding success of the Constitutional Convention - illustrate this point well.

Our Constitution has worked extremely effectively, and it has played a significant role in delivering stable government to this country.

Australia is one of only eight nations to remain continuously democratic throughout the course of the turbulent 20th century.

The Constitution has demonstrated a robust flexibility not always seen in the written constitutions of other countries - a flexibility built into the document by the framers at the dawn of our national life.

This suppleness is evident in the conventions and broadly accepted traditions of the Constitution which have provided the basis for almost one hundred years of responsible government in Australia.

That is why as Opposition Leader I believed that the preferred route for consideration of the question of whether and how Australia should move to a republic was through a popularly elected convention which included provision for the key players rather than through the blanket imposition of a single, government-imposed model.

As you know, the Constitutional Convention last week completed its work in Canberra.

I believe that it was perhaps the most genuinely representative major decision-making body - in terms of creed, ethnicity and gender - to have convened in Australia.

I am proud that this institution, which was a response to popular will and involved the full spectrum of the Australian community, was a clear success.

The Convention was a watershed in the evolution of Australia's democracy - both as an institutional mechanism in itself, and as a means of considering the evolution of other key Australian institutions.

It was, as Prime Minister Howard said on the final day of the Convention, a historic exercise in the best Burkean tradition of "constructive and honourable conservatism," through which society itself generates its own evolution rather than responds to dogmatic "one way only" government.

The public interest in the proceedings and debates of the Convention was a true measure of its ability to capture the imagination of Australians from all walks of life.

Above all, it underlines the fact that those institutions that spring and draw strength from the popular will, always have the greatest chance of surviving and prospering - and, most importantly, of serving the people well over the long term.

Part Two: International Institutions - Pursuing Common Values and Interests

In a similar way, in the global arena, those international institutions which reflect and advance the common values and interests of their member states in practical ways have the greatest chance of winning a consistently influential voice in world affairs.

The most difficult task - and the most important - in foreign and trade policy is to set a firm long term course. We must be flexible and creative, but not be diverted or distracted from that long term course.

For Australia, the Asia Pacific is the region of greatest importance and priority - a region that is evolving more rapidly than ever before.

It is a region facing major challenges in the short to medium term - the challenges that come with decades of unprecedented economic growth, and the renewed imperative for economic reform and greater transparency in its financial institutions.

I believe that the Asia Pacific will not lose its economic dynamism, but it will have learned valuable lessons from the current economic crisis.

At the same time, strategic relativities among regional countries will continue to change. The Asia Pacific's future security environment will be affected by how well regional countries manage the evolution of their political and social institutions.

The creation and development of APEC is the best example of how a regional organisation can help Australia and its neighbours meet emerging regional needs, set and achieve realistic objectives, and advance common interests over the long term.

In 1980, Prime Ministers Fraser of Australia and Ohira of Japan put in place the Pacific Economic Cooperation Council or PECC. PECC paved the way for the formation of APEC in 1989. Professor Garnaut, among others, played an important role in establishing the intellectual and policy foundations for APEC.

In a similar way to APEC, the ASEAN Regional Forum (ARF) was established to give practical expression to an emerging interest among regional countries in promoting stability and security.

But there is also an important new need - a need reflected in a new agenda to improve standards of governance and the protection of citizens at the regional and global level.

This is a difficult area of policy because of several sensitivities about national sovereignty.

That is why Australia supports the development of institutions within a country's own environment and national life.

It is not something which can be imposed from without, for if there is not the political will and the people with a knowledge and a commitment to making those institutions work, then they will simply founder.

The work of national institutions in individual countries can be strengthened through sub-regional and regional arrangements which provide a framework for exchanges of views and experiences.

A key institution currently in evolution is the Asia Pacific Forum of National Human Rights Institutions, with a supporting Secretariat based in and financed by Australia.

In years to come, I believe this institution will become more significant. I am pleased to say that it is already yielding tangible results.

I want to emphasise that it is only through the pursuit of practical and effective efforts to promote human rights that we show real commitment to the welfare of individuals and society.

Beyond our own region, at the global level, Australia has important national interests engaged in the work of the United Nations, particularly in core areas such as international security and disarmament where the UN has functioned effectively as both a forum and a catalyst for international action.

The Conference on Disarmament (CD) in Geneva is the international community's leading arms control negotiating forum. It has a proven track record in negotiating effective, verifiable global disarmament and non-proliferation treaties which have helped reduce the threat of weapons of mass destruction, including in Australia's area of primary strategic concern.

It is a forum which I believe can be developed still further with great benefits to the international community.

In my speech to the CD earlier this month, I called for a ban on transfers of anti-personnel landmines to which the major, traditional landmines users and producers who have not signed the Ottawa Treaty, can subscribe. This process will go forward through the CD and will be guided by Australia's Ambassador for Disarmament who has been appointed UN Special Co-ordinator on Landmines. The CD can also play a key role in advancing the international agenda through a fissile materials cut-off convention.

Another significant development currently taking place at the international level is the negotiation of a draft Statute for an International Criminal Court. Australia is strongly committed to the early establishment of the Court as a major human rights objective. It is an institution which is emerging in response to the horrors of Srebenica in Bosnia, Year Zero in Cambodia and the unspeakable killings in Rwanda.

Part Three: Australia's Institutions of Diplomacy - Flexibility and Innovation

Clearly, Australia must continue to be a thoughtful and well respected source of practical ideas and inspiration for all the regional and global institutions of which I have been speaking.

However, the principal focus of our institution building must of course be on our own home.

Australia's own institutions of diplomacy must reflect the changes - the opportunities and vitality - of the society and world around them.

Our success depends on ensuring that the resources available to these institutions are utilised effectively.

New forms of communications technology, emerging by the month, are ensuring that no corner of the world will be untouched by globalisation.

The notion of a purely domestic market is becoming obsolete with the spreading use of the Internet. Once a product or service is available on the Internet, it can be sold to the world at large.

The key element of the 21st Century's technological advance will be accelerated information flow.

Institutions of all kinds will be faced with key decisions about the control and dissemination of information.

The choice for any government must be whether its diplomacy harnesses the flow of history and innovation, or attempts to resist it.

That is why I believe the fundamental change in the diplomatic architecture within Australia must be one of transparency and participation.

The traditional repositories of information and insight on international affairs such as the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade must increasingly open themselves to the contestability of ideas.

This contestability is the hallmark of an enterprising and practical outlook on the world which allows the best ideas available in our wider national life to come to the fore.

I want to mention several important examples of what the Australian Government is doing to meet this ever-increasing challenge.

In August last year, the Government released Australia's first ever White Paper on Foreign and Trade Policy.

It is the most comprehensive and tightly focused document of its type in the history of Australia's international engagement.

The preparation of the White Paper was an extensive process which drew systematically on information, insights and analysis from a wide range of sources and institutions - including the business and academic community.

The White Paper established a clear, long term public statement of Australia's goals, our challenges, our priorities and the best strategies to achieve our goals.

The White Paper emphasised that Australia must marshal its considerable assets - economic, strategic, cultural and intellectual - in the pursuit of its foreign and trade policy interests.

In a related way, the Government has made Australia's treaty process more open and accountable.

Our far-reaching reforms of the treaty-making process mean that treaties and associated information are now much more freely available, that the consideration of treaties prior to ratification is more extensive, and that there is now genuine accountability in the treaty system.

I am pleased to say that my first statement to the Australian Parliament as Foreign Minister was to inform Parliament of the details of this reform package.

Beyond the treaty process, I am delighted to say that the new Foreign Affairs Council - Australia's first ever - will hold its inaugural meeting next week.

The Council comprises a panel of distinguished and highly qualified individuals - drawn largely from Australia's universities. The Council will be making use of the intellectual firepower available on this campus with significant representation from the ANU, including Professor Garnaut.

One of the Foreign Affairs Council's major purposes is to foster the contestability of ideas in the foreign policy arena. It does this by providing a new mechanism for the Government to obtain business and community perspectives on a broad range of political and strategic issues.

The Council will complement the work undertaken by my Department and other departments and agencies. It will also parallel the work of the Trade Policy Advisory Council which provides advice to my colleague, the Minister for Trade, Tim Fischer.

The Council will help bring the collective wisdom of our academic community and other prominent experts to bear on some of the most pressing and complex issues relevant to Australia's foreign and trade policy and the future of our region.

The Centre for Democratic Institutions is another good example of Australia's commitment to innovative institution-building.

This Centre will be devoted to the provision of practical support for the consolidation and strengthening of democratic institutions in developing countries included in Australia's aid program.

The focus of the Centre's training programs will be on electoral, parliamentary, judicial and human rights institution-building, and the processes by which broader society can contribute to democratic decision-making.

I am particularly proud of the Centre because it exemplifies a cooperative rather than conflict approach towards promoting human rights. It will be the flagship of our good governance initiatives.

The ANU will host the Centre, and I look forward to seeing it develop further.

That leads me, finally, to the special responsibility which academic and other public and private institutions have in educating and informing the public about Australia's national interests and our international engagement.

There needs to be a wider understanding in the community about how international developments affect Australia, and about the complexities of managing Australia's external relations in ways that advance Australia's security and economic well-being.

In that respect, I am pleased to announce that the Australian National University proposes to establish a new School of International Studies and Diplomacy.

The School will have two aims - to provide postgraduate education for students seeking careers in international affairs in government, internationally, and in the private sector; and to conduct research in international affairs which would influence public policy.

I want to congratulate the ANU for its leadership in this area. The School is a forward-looking initiative, and I endorse the proposal wholeheartedly.

There is now an unprecedented opportunity for the ANU and other institutions to establish Australia as a regional centre of excellence in diplomacy.

Already, several Australian institutions, including the ANU, have acquired an international reputation for their research expertise in Asian studies, especially on China, Indonesia, Japan, the Asia Pacific strategic environment, and patterns of economic integration in the region.

Building on these achievements, Australia can help train diplomats and leaders of the future from throughout the Asia Pacific while, at the same time, gaining new insights and knowledge from these diplomats and leaders.

That is why I am convinced that the ANU's new school will be a valuable long term investment - not just in Australia's future but the future of the entire Asia Pacific.

Conclusion

I want to conclude today by returning to the key issue I spoke about at the beginning - the fundamental choice between institutional evolution and imposition.

I believe that we must allow our institutions to grow in a way that promotes the vitality and relevance of ideas.

The challenge for Australia, then - in building its institutions of diplomacy for a new millennium - is to combine flexibility and innovation with a sustained long term vision.

That is the goal towards which we are working.

We are working to make the fundamental liberal principles of social development a practical reality in our national life and institutions - giving "the human spirit scope in the modern state", to quote Sir Frederick Eggleston.

These are the reforms that guarantee open and vigorous debate in our national life, and they give us the best chance to achieve an efficient, undistorted distribution of national resources - be they intellectual or economic.

And these are the reforms that advance Australia's national interests by building open and results-oriented institutions well equipped to meet the demands of the future and which, above all else, allow the human genius for innovation to flourish.