kevin`s plans for asia

There’s one thing about our Prime Minister – he certainly is resilient.

No sooner had he finished dealing with the pernickety details of FuelWatch than he was out there making a new world order. The problem is that his plans for the region may be even harder to sell than his plans for the service stations.

Kevin Rudd’s proposal for a Pan-Asian alliance/union/community – just which is not entirely clear – is certainly a big idea, and coming from Rudd our most Asia-literate leader, it has to be taken seriously. But as both Bob Hawke and Paul Keating have pointed out in their different ways, bringing it into existence would involve fundamental changes in the way the Asian nations see both themselves and the region.

First, it needs to be recognised that the idea of Asia as an entity is a purely European invention. Asia was always The East, whence came the barbarian invasions of Huns, Vandals, Tartars and Mongols and Turks.

Its geographical limits varied according to circumstance. The Near East could start in the Balkans and include Greece and Albania; the Middle East took over at the end of the Mediterranean and reached to Afghanistan, with the Far East after that, although of course for genuine English xenophobes wogs started at Calais.

Technically the western border of Asia was considered to run through the Ural mountains past the shores of the Caspian sea and into the Caucasus; but in colloquial terms Asia just meant that bit of the great northern continent that wasn’t Europe. When Alexander the Great set out to conquer and cross it he discovered that the reality was far more complicated, a series of states and nations with separate languages and customs; but even centuries later, long after explorers, traders and colonisers had exposed the bewilderingly varied reality, there was a tendency to see Asia as a homogenous mass.

Thus Rudyard Kipling: “Ship me somewhere east of Suez/ Where the best is like the worst/ And there ain’t no ten commandments/ And a man can raise a thirst.” Or, rather more pompously, “East is East and West is West/ And never the twain shall meet/ Till earth and sky lie presently/ At God’s great judgment seat.”

A century later still there was an echo of this in Paul Keating’s notorious remark to Bob Hawke that Asia was just a place you had to fly over on the way to Europe. It was perhaps this attitude which led him to label Malaysia’s prime minister Mohammad Mahathir as “recalcitrant” when he refused to get involved with Keating’s version of APEC.

But herein lies the catch 22 for Rudd. The leaders to our north do not think of themselves as Asians: they hardly ever use the word. They are, first and foremost, fiercely independent nationalists. It is built into their history: with the single exception of Thailand, every Asian nation was colonised by one or more European countries and independence involved a long and bitter fight. (China, of course, was not physically colonised, but was frequently and humiliatingly invaded when it refused to toe the European line).

In addition there is a tradition of internecine war between them; the states of Indochina spent centuries fighting each other and/or China. And to cap it off, there is China’s unremitting loathing of Japan for the atrocities committed in World War II. Rudd notes cheerfully that France and Germany also had centuries of more or less permanent conflict, but are now partners in the European Community. He could have added that Australia and Japan were profitably reconciled little more than a decade after the war. But this is to miss the point about how jealously the former colonies guard their sovereignty.
Even when they form an association such as ASEAN, it is on the strict understanding that there is to be no interference whatsoever in the internal workings of any one of them. This is why the horror of Burma has been allowed to endure for so long; a parallel exists in Africa where the so-called Organization of African States has a strict hands-off policy regarding Zimbabwe.

It is not clear just how much co-operation and give and take Rudd’s ideas involve; initially, probably very little. But if the proposed new grouping is to be inclusive, and to have a life and an autonomy beyond mere symbolism, it will eventually have to make inroads into the national identity of those involved. There is little hope that the present generation of leaders would be prepared to allow such concessions or that their populations would find them acceptable.

Nice try, Kevin: it was certainly a visionary concept, which we needed after the last few weeks. But for now it’s back to FuelWatch.
*******************************************************************

Another year, another bloody honours list. And this week her gracious majesty the Queen of Australia has seen fit to grant John Howard and Reg Grundy admission to the select group of Companions of the Order of Australia..
In Howard’s case was hardly unexpected; indeed, an AC has emerged as a one of the automatic perks for former prime ministers. Gough Whitlam, Malcolm Fraser and Bob Hawke all sport the little gold gong on their lapels on formal occasions (and in Hawke’s case, many others).

Paul Keating, however, does not. When offered the seductive bauble, as Patrick White termed it when returning his after the 1975 dismissal, the Bankstown boy remained true to his democratic roots. Not only did he disapprove in principle of the meretricious award system as a hangover from the days of imperial honours, but he wasn’t too keen on some of the company.

In essence it was the Groucho Marx response: he didn’t want to join any club that would have him as a member. The last of the true believers.