“We do not claim to be Asian.” This provocative statement defined John Howard’s first overseas trip as prime minister in September 1996. He meant no offence to his host, Indonesian president Suharto, and none was taken. In fact, the comment generated little discussion at the time because it was self-evidently true. Australia’s ethnic face was Anglo-European. Barely 5% of our population was born in Asia, and the projections at the time had the figure creeping up to 7.5% by 2025.

“I do not believe that Australia faces a choice between our history and our geography,” Howard told the Indonesians and the travelling Australian press corps. “Neither do I see Australia as a bridge between Asia and the west, as is sometimes suggested.”

The reference to the “bridge” did cause a stir because it seemed to undermine the purpose of the address, which was to reassure our neighbours that his newly elected government would remain an “active participant in the region”.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘Howard [seen with Indonesia’s Yudhoyono] matured in the role of PM but none of his successors have held the job long enough to leave a positive legacy.’ Photograph: SUPRI/Reuters

I was reminded of Howard’s uncertain regional debut when Scott Morrison, our fifth prime minister in the past five years, changed the location for misunderstanding from Jakarta to the eastern suburbs of Sydney, where the government was facing a difficult byelection.

The seat of Wentworth had been vacated by former prime minister Malcolm Turnbull after the August 2018 coup against his leadership. Morrison inserted himself into the final stages of the election campaign by suggesting that Australia would move its embassy in Israel from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem.

He was presumably pitching to the large Jewish population in the electorate, because there was no apparent logic beyond Wentworth – it is plainly absurd to think that a newly installed Australian prime minister with no prior experience in foreign affairs would suddenly emerge, saviour-like, to bring peace to the Middle East. No country asked Morrison to build a bridge between the Israelis and the Palestinians. Yet there he was, a leader without a domestic mandate playing statesman outside his own region, seemingly without giving a moment’s thought to how this policy shift would be received by Indonesia or Malaysia, which supports the Palestinian cause.

Our temporary prime ministers become known only for their rookie diplomatic errors and the manner of their dismissal

The troubling episode points to a wider systemic problem in our body politic. It has become the habit of every prime minister since Howard to view Asia through the wrong end of the telescope, placing domestic concerns above all else and assuming that our neighbours will forgive our insensitivity when we ask them to play along. But while Howard matured in the role of prime minister, none of his successors have held the job long enough to leave a positive legacy. Inevitably, this will tarnish Australia’s image in the region, as our temporary prime ministers become known only for their rookie diplomatic errors and the manner of their dismissal.

The leadership coups might not have mattered if the government of the day maintained a consistent approach from one prime minister to the next. But each spin of the roulette wheel triggered an abrupt change in policy. The critical issue for Australia now is: will the circus of our politics cause lasting damage to our interests in the region?

Morrison’s Israel embassy policy cannot be fathomed – and risks his political survival | Katharine Murphy Read more

Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘No country asked Morrison to build a bridge between the Israelis and the Palestinians.’

What happened to creative diplomacy?

Consider how the rivalry between Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard shaped Australia’s border protection regime and warped relations with our neighbours. According to Gillard, one of her first major arguments with Rudd followed the Oceanic Viking incident in October 2009. This was the Australian vessel that had rescued Sri Lankan asylum seekers on their way to our shores. Rudd wanted the passengers to return to Indonesia, where their claims for protection would be assessed. But they would not leave the vessel until they had been promised resettlement in Australia. One month passed before a deal was finally struck. In its assessment of the standoff, the US embassy in Canberra wrote that Rudd’s “megaphone diplomacy” had placed President Yudhoyono in a difficult position. “The Indonesian public don’t want to be a dumping ground for what they perceive [to be] Australia’s problem,” said a cable to Washington dated 18 November 2009.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest ‘The US embassy in Canberra wrote Rudd’s ‘megaphone diplomacy” [over the Oceanic Viking] had placed Yudhoyono in a difficult position.’ Photograph: Vivek Prakash/Reuters

Gillard was more worried about the local reaction. “Kevin seemed determined to ignore the increasing number of asylum seekers arriving by boat and the damage the Oceanic Viking incident had done to the government’s standing,” she wrote in her autobiography, My Story. Gillard wanted a tougher border protection policy, but Rudd resisted. It was clearly a sore point between them because on the night Gillard challenged for the leadership, in June 2010, Rudd warned his colleagues that he would not be “lurching to the right on the question of asylum seekers as some have counselled us to do”.

Each argument between leadership rivals dragged in a neighbour who was expected to relieve Australia’s burden

Once in the prime minister’s office, Gillard got ahead of herself by indicating that asylum seekers would be sent to East Timor for processing. She hadn’t consulted the East Timorese government and the plan was quickly killed off. The next port of call for a solution was Malaysia, but the high court ruled Gillard’s resettlement agreement unconstitutional. She sought to address the court’s concerns through special legislation, but the Abbott-led opposition joined with the Greens to block her path. She withdrew the legislation to avoid losing the vote in the House of Representatives, leaving Australia without an effective border protection regime for the remainder of her minority government.

Notice the trend? Each argument between leadership rivals dragged in a neighbour who was expected to relieve Australia’s burden. The creative diplomacy that had been a hallmark of our engagement in Asia for a generation was replaced by the knee-jerk of domestic politics.

When Rudd reclaimed the Labor leadership in June 2013, he disowned Gillard’s approach and outflanked Abbott with a policy so cruel that it was bound to affect our international reputation. Rudd called on Papua New Guinea to provide a new detention facility on Manus Island. The asylum seekers transported there would never be allowed to settle in Australia. Rudd intended to wind up the measure after the election. But Labor lost in a landslide, and the new prime minister, Abbott, had the political luxury of implementing a policy much harsher than the one he had campaigned on. Abbott added indefinite detention and “turning back the boats” to the regime, thereby completing Australia’s transformation to neighbourhood bully.

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Cover of Australian Foreign Affairs - Are We Asian Yet?

Is this really how we want to be known – as the spoilt rich country that engages when it suits, and pushes its anxieties on to its neighbours when domestic politics calls? The tragedy is that this aggrieved, entitled posture undermines our greatest strength in the Asian century: our people.

This is an edited extract from George Megalogenis’s The Rookie PMs, published in Australian Foreign Affairs 5 - Are We Asian Yet? out 18 February.