Australia’s Identity Crisis: Do We Really Belong to Asia?

Once again, Australians worry about Asia’s opinion of them. It is an old theme but as an expatriate back in the country, I am struck by its bizarre resurgence.

Hasn’t Australia resolved this issue? Decades ago, it deracialized immigration policy--most immigrants to Australia are Asians--and shifted its international economic involvement from Europe to Asia. Canberra plays an important role in regional diplomacy and trade consultation--being the prime originator of the Asia Pacific Economic Community, whose leaders will meet Nov. 25 in the Philippines.

Yet, the media, academics and some politicians torment themselves over the issue of Australia’s proper role in Asia.

A nation of British heritage is heading toward a Eurasian future. A U.S. ally is trying to be a regular guy in the Asian club. These ambiguities induce in some Australians a frenzy of self-criticism. The mood reminds me of Japan’s inability for many years to see how well it had done since World War II. “Poor little rich boy,” it was said of Japan.

The problem is partly that the Labor Party, whose 13 years of rule recently ended, is groping for a new sense of mission. It grabs any stick to beat the new conservative government of John Howard, which has reemphasized Canberra’s ties with the West, and finds that “neglect of Asia” is a handy one. But the spiritual unease has deeper reasons.

“Asia” is something of a mirage. Its nature is clear only when the region is viewed from afar. The Chinese man in the street makes little mention of Asia. By contrast, the Dutch man in the street talks a lot of Europe. Nigerians speak much of Africa. Chileans often use the term Latin America.

The changed meanings of Australia “joining Asia” reinforce the impression of a mirage-like quality to Asia. The particularities of geography are real--nothing concerns the defense planners in Canberra more than stability in Indonesia and New Guinea. Still, the parameters of the region that Australia seeks to be a part of constantly change.

Four decades ago, my teachers in Melbourne said Australia was destined to join Southeast Asia. Actually, the most fruitful links have turned out be with Northeast Asia; trade is greatest with Japan, Korea, Taiwan and China. Communications with the West Coast of the United States are often smoother than with Indonesia or Malaysia. The evolution from talking “Asia” to talking of “Asia Pacific” suggests that Australia’s environment is really a hefty slice of the world, not a region with a clear landmass like Europe, Africa and Latin America.

Asia is a veritable barnyard of assorted birds and beasts. Many countries in Asia Pacific could doubt their qualifications to fit in. Does Japan, which on joining the OECD in the 1970s said it considered itself part of the West, belong alongside Burma and Fiji?

Economically, the U.S. market is a major reason for the rising prosperity of Asia Pacific. The jumpy Australian left, fretting that the United States pulls the country in one direction and Asia in another, should notice that America is the largest trading partner of Australia’s three largest partners--Japan, Greater China and Korea.

Racial composition is no more a disqualification from playing a role in Asia Pacific than are security ties with the United States. Racial fear and pride exist worldwide, including in places where whites are scarce. There is race tension between Japanese and Korean, Thai and Vietnamese, Chinese and Malay, to mention a few examples.

Every member of the Asia Pacific community brings to it strengths and weaknesses. Australia’s history ill-equipped the country to play a role in the region. Yet, Australia also possesses strengths: political stability; raw materials and other products that Asia Pacific likes to buy; academic institutions attractive to young Asians, and a substantial immigration program open to Asians.

Australia is broadly accepted as a participant in much of the life of Asia Pacific. It is a historic step ahead from the 1950s and 1960s--when Australia was almost the South Africa of Asia--and Australians should take satisfaction in it.

There seems to be a gap between the views of the grass roots (cautious about immigration) and those of the political elite who became entrenched in the 1980s (focused on high-level activities like APEC). Closing it should be a natural for the conservative Howard government. This requires two things: thinking about the ways Australia can further its role in Asia Pacific; insisting on the connection between that role and Australia’s confidence in itself.

Australia would be doomed if it turned the clock back against Asian influence. Equally, it would be doomed if, apologetic about Australian traditions, it allowed Australia to become a self-doubting supermarket of multiculturalism. Howard’s critics are too self-conscious about relations with Asia--like an elegant person at a dinner party who cannot enjoy herself because she frets about whether her dress looks right.

Four points need to be stressed.

* Australia’s place in Asia Pacific is based, in the last analysis, on interests--Australia’s and those of its partners. It is not based on feelings, etiquette or even values.

* Australia is a distinctive, attractive society with as much to offer Asia Pacific as it stands to receive. The fact that really gives the lie to the guilt and unease of Australian leftists is that millions of Asians apply to come and live in Australia. Over the years, 10 times the number it actually takes in seek to come.

* Australian identity is constantly evolving. It matters less where this evolution will take the country in the long term than that the process be conducted steadily and with broad support. Without trepidation, Australia will become Eurasian. But I would not argue about that vision with rural and conservative Australians who disagree; because it will come about, if it does, through a thousand incremental decisions, and many involuntary happenings, that go beyond the policy of any party or the will of one generation.

* Australians have to live with their ambiguity. In their ambiguity, they are a parallel to Japan. Japan is the most Asian country in the developed Western community. Australia is the most Western country in Asia. There is anxiety about such a role. There is also opportunity--as Japan has demonstrated. Sometimes, I think if Australians would only accept their ambiguities, the nagging issue of Australia and Asia would evaporate. Enjoy the dinner party; your dress looks just fine!