Australian diplomacy today

Peter Varghese AO, Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT), refers to diplomacy as ‘the compass by which Australia makes its way in the world’. Its core task – to advance the nation’s security and prosperity – remains unchanged across decades.

One might assume from this metaphorical treatment by Australia’s chief diplomat that Australian diplomacy holds to a fairly steady and clearly defined course. Yet, the reality is that Australian diplomacy is in a state of flux, responding and adapting to constant shifts today’s interconnected global landscape. At every level of analysis, the demands on Australia’s diplomats are growing in intensity, complexity and urgency. Aspirations for the nation’s diplomatic performance are high in all contexts – global and regional, multilateral and bilateral – and Australia’s interests and activities span the breadth of high to low politics. At the same time, the rising expectations of public audiences at home and abroad have brought new pressures, modes of engagement and unconventional actors to the fore.

Sadly the study of the dynamics and developments underscoring Australia’s contemporary diplomatic practice has in this country been largely neglected. The aim of this special issue on ‘Australian Diplomacy Today’ is to prompt an ongoing conversation that might begin to address this gap. The papers for this special issue have been drawn from the Australian Diplomacy Today Symposium held in August 2015 organised by the Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA), Australian National University and Bond University with the support of DFAT’s Public Diplomacy Division.

The symposium brought together academic experts and practitioners to consider and reflect on Australia’s diplomatic interests, capabilities and skills. Our goals were threefold: first, to examine the challenges and opportunities facing contemporary Australian diplomacy; second, to reveal conceptual developments and highlight the gaps within scholarship and practice; and third, to encourage further debate and scholarship that might inform practice into the future.

The number and quality of contributions to the symposium exceeded our expectations. For this special issue we decided to draw attention to those papers highlighting the interplay between Australia’s global diplomatic aspirations and vulnerabilities: from issues of leadership and influence in key multilateral forums to the prosecution of trade, development and humanitarian priorities on the global and regional stage. We also wanted to cast light on emerging but underexplored impact of domestic shifts on the nature and function of Australian diplomacy.

The papers presented to the symposium and those selected for this issue reveal a notable tendency towards liberal internationalist perspectives. Though not intentional, it is unsurprising given the dominance of global and multilateral issues and performance in Australian practice over recent years. In the absence of regular discussion about Australian diplomacy, these contributions display a clear interest in Australia’s international engagements. At the same time, they reflect the underlying traditions of Australian diplomacy, including the pursuit of common interests and consensus among like-minded states that is, according to James Cotton (2013, 47) ‘emblematic of the internationalist voice within the Australian school’ of international relations.

We acknowledge that this collection does not represent a comprehensive account of Australian diplomacy today. Other areas that could be addressed relate to diplomatic pressures within Australia’s bilateral relationships especially within the Asia-Pacific region, the role and interplay between institutional actors within the portfolio, the significance of parliamentary process, and the development of Australia’s public diplomacy.

Time and space constraints have meant that a number of symposium papers addressing these and other issue areas could not be included within this special issue. In particular, we would like to make special mention of the engaging and thoughtful contributions submitted by Bill Fisher, Mike Smith, Mike Callaghan, Alison Broinowski, Stuart Murray, Caitlin Byrne, Diane Stone and Elena Ferguson. The contributions made by these participants extended the discussion of Australian diplomacy beyond the traditional state-centric, national interest parameters and reinforced the increasingly diffuse, public and networked nature of Australia’s contemporary diplomacy.

Insiders’ reflections

The special issue begins with views and provocations from two of Australia’s most accomplished contemporary diplomats. Peter Varghese’s opening speech to the symposium sets the tone. As DFAT’s outgoing Secretary, he provides a rare insider reflection on the challenges facing Australia’s diplomatic service in the twenty-first century. Varghese opens with an introduction to the classic view of diplomacy, drawing inspiration from momentous events in diplomatic history, notably the 1815 Congress of Vienna and the 1919 Paris Peace Conference¹. The images portray diplomacy as a practice dominated by privileged men, conducted behind closed doors and imbued with a sense of grandeur, gravitas and order. The role of the ambassador as an instrument of this traditional practice is pivotal providing direct, official and secure communication while representing the interests of the state.

Varghese is quick to point out that these images of diplomacy reflect an era that is far removed from today. The global landscape, reshaped by the proliferation of diplomatic actors, the spread of new technologies and emergence of the non-stop media cycle demands a style of diplomacy that is complex yet agile and versatile. While today’s diplomatic practice might appear mundane, it is ‘more profound and potentially more challenging’ than ever before. Within this context the key issue for Varghese is not whether diplomacy is necessary, but rather how effective can it be. Reflecting on the Australian context he identifies five issues that challenge Australia’s diplomatic effectiveness: new technologies, institutional reform, gender diversity, the capacity to innovate and the intervention of political leaders. If, as he argues, diplomacy is ultimately reduced down to the capacity for understanding one’s environment, exercising sound judgement and building strong relationships, then it will be the ability of Australia’s diplomats to navigate and respond these challenges that will impact on the effectiveness of Australian diplomacy into the future.

The second practitioner provocation comes from the Hon Kim Beazley AC FAIIA. Having recently taken on the role of AIIA National President after six years as Australia’s Ambassador to the USA, Beazley applies a different lens to his critique. However, the underlying emphasis on the skill and ability of the diplomat as determinants of success resonate with Varghese’s argument. Beazley’s comments, included here as an excerpt from an interview conducted by Fergus Hanson in Washington DC during his final year as Ambassador, reflect on the nature and evolution of Australian diplomatic practice in a world of changing power dynamics.

Despite Australia’s strong diplomatic track record, he cautions that Australia’s ability to punch above its weight diplomatically might now be waning. In his view this shift reflects a tendency to overthink issues based on ‘incomplete perspectives and information’, and a reluctance to engage in deep and persistent relationship-building. This point is made in direct reference to Australia’s engagement with China in contrast to the relative sophistication of US diplomats. For Beazley, Australian diplomatic practice must address deficits in these areas if it is effectively to navigate its most pressing and challenging diplomatic course ahead: that between the USA and China.

Assessments of Australia’s diplomatic performance

The special issue then shifts from practitioner perspectives towards academic assessments of Australia’s diplomatic performance on the global stage. In the first of these, Jeremy Farrell and Jochen Prantl review Australia’s influence as a temporary member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC), arguably the nation’s most significant global appointment this decade. The authors undertake a useful comparison between Australia’s ability to influence UNSC decision-making as a temporary member in 2013–2014, and its ability to influence the Council over the East Timor crisis in 1999 when it was not a member. In both cases, Australia’s strategic leverage of like-minded nations within the UNSC was identified as pivotal.

Their case studies raise questions about the nature and relevance of Australia’s global diplomatic leadership and purpose. In one case, while on the UNSC, Australia played the role of responding to and shaping the issues of the day; by contrast, while operating outside the UNSC Australia was better placed to pursue an active leadership style setting and influencing the diplomatic agenda. Farrell and Prantl make the point that Australia’s diplomatic engagement with the UNSC is ‘desirable, necessary and strategic’ from a foreign policy and reputational perspective. However, their findings suggest that with the appropriate resources, conviction, and creativity Australia is capable of influencing UNSC decision-making, whether as a member of the UNSC or not.

Tristram Sainsbury then turns to an assessment of Australia’s economic diplomacy, an approach shaped by DFAT that highlights prosperity ‘as a complement to traditional diplomacy’s emphasis on peace’. Sainsbury argues that Australia’s approach to economic diplomacy is short on economic depth and substance. When viewed through the lens of recent developments in global economic, trade and finance decision-making Sainsbury suggests this is reflective of a deeper disconnect between foreign policy objectives and economic principles, which ultimately hampers Australia’s capacity to undertake economic diplomacy. As a result, he argues, rather than emerging as the new cornerstone of foreign policy, Australia’s economic diplomacy strategy offers a ‘partial and distorted’ vision for enhancing Australia’s economic interests.

Importantly, Sainsbury’s analysis draws attention to the depth of economic policy and cost-benefit expertise residing outside DFAT, particularly within the Australian Treasury and the Reserve Bank of Australia. The input provided from across these agencies, particularly in driving Australia’s leadership of the G20 agenda in 2014 suggests an emerging specialised role for the economic diplomat. In keeping with this line of thinking, Sainsbury concludes that DFAT might best support the practice of economic diplomacy by respecting, accommodating and utilising the broader network structure of Australia’s international economic engagement.

Susan Harris Rimmer furthers this discussion through an examination of the substantive issues underpinning Australia’s engagement in the complex streams of global trade, focusing in particular on the unique challenges presented by the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP). Harris Rimmer identifies trade as ‘one of the most ancient forms of diplomacy’ and the multilateral trade agenda as one that holds ongoing significance for Australian national interests in the twenty-first century. Yet she notes the paradox that as economic globalisation deepens, broader commitment to the multilateral trade regime continues to weaken, giving rise to a complex diplomatic web of bilateral and plurilateral trade agreements.

Reflecting on the dynamic and fragmented nature of the global trade environment, Harris Rimmer suggests that the assessment made by former Australian Trade Minister, Andrew Robb that you have ‘“to row your own boat” or risk missing out’ holds particular relevance for Australian diplomats. Using the controversial TPP as a case study, she highlights wider security and geopolitical tensions at play and, like Sainsbury, calls for stronger cost-benefit analysis of trade arrangements but with particular attention paid to potential human rights impacts. She casts light on the ‘intermestic’ nature of today’s trade agenda and notes the growing concern, even scepticism of domestic publics towards international trade outcomes.

The next three papers grapple with themes that consistently feature within, yet challenge the interests underpinning Australia’s diplomatic agenda. In the first of these, Benjamin Day examines the recent dismantling of Australia’s bipartisan ‘golden consensus’ on foreign aid and asks why this consensus was uprooted so easily. The question and its subsequent analysis opens up an important critique with regard to the influence of domestic constituencies on policy development and the tensions that challenge the national interest.

Armed with compelling comparative research about the role and influence of development constituencies on foreign policy-making, Day suggests that the patchy, isolated and fragmented nature of Australia’s development constituency played a role in marginalising Australia’s development agenda. The reluctance of the development constituency to engage in wider foreign policy debate reflects, in his view, problems and assumptions underlying the relevance of foreign aid to the national interest. Day ultimately argues that improving the quality and substance of national debate would help tease out the many considerations informing the position of foreign aid within Australia’s foreign policy and diplomatic agenda, including definitions and interpretations of the national interest; an argument made more compelling since AusAID’s integration into DFAT.

Jacinta O’Hagan offers a similarly pithy discussion about the role and relevance of humanitarian diplomacy within Australia’s foreign policy and diplomatic practice, teasing out similar national interest tensions and ambiguities. After discussing humanitarian diplomacy’s theoretical bounds and identifying key moments in Australia’s historic and recent humanitarian profile, O’Hagan highlights an important duality at play: on the one hand, the role of humanitarian diplomacy is to provide protection and assistance on the ground in humanitarian emergencies; on the other, there is a tendency to conduct humanitarianism as diplomacy: that is, as a mechanism that promotes and protects a state’s own interests. The difference between the two, though subtle, rests in the motivation for action: either in the interests of the other or for self-interest. And, while often complementary the potential for incompatibility and tension between humanitarianism and national interests, particularly for Australia presents a range of ethical and political challenges and dilemmas.

William Maley picks up on the last point drawing the discussion more deeply into the realm of tension surrounding the interplay between domestic politics and foreign policy through the lens of Australia’s approach to refugees and asylum seekers. His paper highlights the nature of Australian diplomacy as a two-level game: whereby foreign policy is subject to and crafted for domestic political gain, with little regard for or in direct competition with Australia’s wider diplomatic interests.

Maley points to the recent shift in Australia’s long and relatively uncontentious history of engagement with refugees, triggered by a political realisation that domestic votes were at stake. The issue was framed as a ‘national emergency’ and terms like ‘queue jumpers’ acting ‘illegally’ were applied, he contends, to dehumanise asylum seekers in the domestic consciousness. This was reflected in subsequent policy moves, including offshore processing and resettlement and unilateral border controls.

Maley suggests Australia’s stance on refugees and asylum seekers is at odds with Australia’s interests and undermines Australia’s soft power on several fronts as well as affecting diplomatic outcomes, referring in particular to Australia’s failed diplomatic bid to secure clemency for Australian citizens Andrew Chan and Myuran Sukumaran on death row in Indonesia. Similarly, he raises concerns that the issue will damage Australia’s hopes for election to the United Nations Human Rights Council in 2018.

The final two papers of this special issue turn towards two distinct pressure points currently challenging the nature, function and representation of Australia’s diplomatic practice. The first of these by Alex Oliver focuses on the rising demand for consular services abroad. Oliver asserts that globalisation, international crises and the expansion of outbound ‘Aussie adventurism’ have created a plethora of new challenges and burdens for Australia’s consular services. She notes too that Australia’s capacity remains inadequate to deal with rapidly rising demand and expectations for service.

Traditionally consular functions have been viewed as having limited impact on foreign policy objectives. They have therefore been accorded a lower priority within ministries of foreign affairs and their missions abroad. Indeed, Oliver notes that some scholars and practitioners continue to see consular work as a distraction from Australia’s substantive diplomatic agenda and impediment to diplomatic representation abroad. However, citing wider international trends, combined with the growing significance of consular services on the reputation of the ministry and government and rising domestic expectations, Oliver argues that such attitudes are changing.

She further argues the case for a more robust diplomatic network to service the needs of travelling Australians and highlights the recent announcement of new or upgraded diplomatic missions in popular Australian tourist and business destinations like Phuket and Ulaanbaatar as essential. Yet, recognising the chronic underfunding of Australian diplomacy more broadly, Oliver also call for more strategic and creative measures such as effective co-location or burden sharing arrangements with other like-minded partner nations as a way to alleviate the growing resource pressure. However, consular diplomacy is not a one-way street. As the title of the paper suggests, there is an increasing need for DFAT to manage the expectations of Australians to ensure they travel responsibly and are better informed and prepared for what their government may or may not be able to do to help them should misadventure befall them abroad.

To conclude, Melissa Conley Tyler turns the focus of this issue further inward to review the profile of Australia’s diplomatic workforce in light of efforts to improve overall diversity and inclusion. She argues that the value to be gained from a diplomatic service that more accurately represents the diversity of the nation is twofold: in terms of both diplomatic function and representation. The business case for diversity is strong in diplomacy where cross-cultural knowledge, language skills and the ability to build cross-cultural networks and understanding are important assets; at the same time a diverse service is likely to be viewed more favourably by domestic constituencies, and more credibly in the eyes of regional and global stakeholders and interlocutors, in terms of representation.

Through a case study of the Indigenous Recruitment and Career Development Strategy, DFAT is shown to be an international leader in encouraging a more diverse diplomatic workplace. While the appointment of Australia’s first Indigenous Ambassador, His Excellency Damien Miller in 2013, raised the visibility of Indigenous diplomats within DFAT, challenges remain including indirect discrimination, the impact of family and cultural responsibilities and unconscious bias. Lessons from DFAT’s experience include the importance of high-profile senior leadership, adaptation and sustained effort in order to gain the performance and representational benefits of a more diverse diplomatic service. These are challenges that must be animating Peter Varghese’s replacement as Secretary of DFAT, Ms Frances Adamson: the first female DFAT Secretary, working for Australia’s first female Minister for Foreign Affairs. With an ambitious Women in Leadership Strategy, Disability Action Strategy and a LGBTI (Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender and Intersex) staff network, DFAT aims to embody diversity in contemporary diplomacy.

Challenges and opportunities

Each of the authors included in this issue presents contemporary Australian diplomacy through a different lens reflecting the significant complexities at play between interests, arenas, issues and actors. While the authors do not adhere to a single definition of diplomacy, it becomes evident that the classical approach to diplomacy as an instrument by which the state prosecutes its national interests provides the starting point. For many authors, notably Varghese and Beazley considerable weight is also given to the skills and attributes of the diplomat in defining the nature and conduct of the profession. Yet, all contributors acknowledge the rapidly changing global diplomatic landscape. When read together the papers reveal three consistent themes challenging Australian diplomacy today.

The first challenge is an overall lack of coherence regarding Australian diplomacy’s core purpose. While recent diplomatic achievements in global forums like the UNSC and G20 and across diverse issue areas from economics and trade to humanitarian diplomacy are impressive, their underlying purpose and contribution to Australia’s interests are not always clear. This is exaggerated by the unpredictability and intensity of issues and events on the global stage. As a result much of Australia’s diplomatic effort appears reactionary, fragmented or out of touch. It is particularly significant if, to draw further on Varghese’s earlier compass metaphor, national interest is the needle that aligns the direction of Australia’s diplomatic efforts.

National interest is by nature an amorphous and dynamic concept. Coherent national interests will guide foreign policy development and decision-making and effective resource allocation even in the most complex of environments, to support necessary practice. There is no single formula for defining the national interest. As former DFAT Secretary, Ashton Calvert (2003) stated, it depends on ‘prior strategic choices we have made, and is informed by the view we have of ourselves as a country, and by what we want to stand for’. This special issue identifies the emerging tensions for Australia’s national interest: blurred by conflated and conflicting aspirations and motivations. As O’Hagan notes, these tensions are not always clear-cut, and can even be complementary, but where they are not clearly understood can create ambiguities and problems in diplomatic practice.

Several papers in this issue highlight the need to tease out, interpret and articulate the fundamentals of a contemporary national interest statement. For O’Hagan it is a matter of diplomats engaging pragmatically to balance altruism and national interests with a careful eye on maintaining reputation and relationships, particularly within Australia’s own Asia-Pacific region. Harris Rimmer suggests that national interest conversations might be most appropriately progressed as part of a foreign policy white paper, and supports a wider critique that ‘Australian foreign policy is remarkably resistant to the notion of long-term planning that is accepted as routine business in many other areas of public policy’ (Jennings 2014). The fact that Australia’s most recent foreign policy white paper was delivered over a decade ago is telling.

The second challenge is regarding the involvement of Australia’s domestic audiences in ongoing international policy debate and discussion. Australia’s foreign policy and diplomatic direction are increasingly developed within the ‘intermestic’ sphere, where domestic and international policy issues and implications blend. This reflects the rising domestic awareness of and connection to policy debates alongside the increasingly opportunistic nature of domestic political agendas. Both have implications for Australia’s diplomacy.

With this in mind, there is a striking need for wider and more inclusive discussion about Australia’s national interests and diplomatic priorities at home. A public diplomacy effort is needed that engages with domestic publics to understand and inform public perceptions on foreign policy, to build interest and consolidate support for diplomatic practice and to clarify the substance and direction of Australia’s national interest. Such a task challenges DFAT’s traditionally outward orientation, but is deserving of attention. Without it, Australia risks incoherence in diplomatic practice and a widening disconnect between its domestic politics and foreign policy objectives, both of which have implications for Australia’s international reputation, soft power and diplomatic influence.

The final challenge is resourcing Australia’s diplomatic functions. Many of the papers in this collection have brought attention to the imperative for innovation, agility and diversity in practice. Importantly, the discussions also advanced arguments for greater investment in diplomacy if Australia is successfully to prosecute its interests in today’s complex and competitive world. Australia’s diplomatic footprint and activities have for too long borne the brunt of budget cuts and efficiency dividends (Lowy Institute for International Policy 2009). While most of the authors associated with this issue argue that Australian diplomacy is far from a state of disrepair, many agree that it remains deep in deficit. Ongoing funding and creative measures that support Australia’s diplomatic footprint and functioning, while promoting diversity in practice are necessary if DFAT is to advance the multi-dimensional interests of Australia abroad accurately and effectively. Attracting the very best talent – from all of Australia’s diverse population – is another important part of resourcing.

Conclusion

For a nation like Australia operating in a complex world, diplomacy is an essential element of the nation’s statecraft that reflects and advances the nation’s interests, values and identity in the world. This special issue seeks to encourage wider conversations about the challenges and opportunities facing Australian diplomacy. To this end, we thank all of those who contributed to the Australian Diplomacy Today Symposium, including: immediate past AIIA National President John McCarthy, AIIA Research Chair Shirley Scott and ACT Council members Bob Lowry and Garth Hunt; speakers Michael Wesley, Bill Fisher, Diane Stone, Alison Broinowski, Mike Smith and Janelle Saffin; and the impressive DFAT officers who provided a practitioner perspective, Rob Tranter, Jon Philp, James Batley and Michael Bliss. Thanks are due to the DFAT Public Diplomacy Division, Asia-Pacific College of Diplomacy, Bond University and AIIA for their support.

It is our hope that this special issue will provoke further debate about the deeper interests and values underpinning Australian diplomacy. Doing so will contribute to the evolving conceptual understanding of Australian diplomacy while informing policy and improving practice. More importantly, widening the conversation might bring a strategic coherence and continuity to Australian diplomacy that is currently missing, while contributing to a larger appreciation of diplomacy as a reflection of the nation, its identity and its values.

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

ORCiD

Melissa Conley Tyler http://orcid.org/0000-0003-1466-5559

Susan Harris Rimmer http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6455-9546

Notes

1. These images are depicted as Varghese notes in Henry Kissenger’s seminal book on Diplomacy.