Given the war on Ukraine and a federal government seemingly eager to have an election fought on national security grounds, Prime Minister Scott Morrison’s Lowy Institute address on Monday was more carefully scrutinised that one might normally expect for a speech on foreign policy.
But the speech was truly notable for Morrison’s epiphany on international cooperation as a means of tackling global issues. Nowhere was this clearer than in his remarks discussing Russia’s war on Ukraine and the rise of China, where his support for the international rules-based order, and the diplomacy necessary to sustain it, took centre stage.
Eager to cast himself at the forefront of international collaborative efforts to confront what he deemed an “arc of autocracy”, Morrison announced millions of dollars in military aid for Ukraine and 7500 visas for Ukrainian refugees, and trumpeted his government’s diplomatic liaisons with world leaders.
The PMs new-found faith in international cooperation, while perhaps welcome, was jarring for its stark contradiction of his remarks to the same forum in 2019. In his “negative globalism” speech, he railed against international collaboration and diplomacy.
With nativist echoes of Donald Trump and Steve Bannon, Morrison criticised what he called “an unaccountable internationalist bureaucracy”. Channelling John Howard’s nationalism, he proclaimed: “We will decide our interests and the circumstances in which we seek to pursue them.”
What a difference a few years make. It would appear the prime minister has undergone a “road to Damascus” conversion on “positive globalism”, as Guardian Australia’s Katharine Murphy observed.
On Monday, urging the world to follow in our new-found enthusiasm for international cooperation, Morrison issued a rallying cry: “We must stand together, resolute, against aggression and coercion — wherever it occurs.”
And so the short-lived Morrison doctrine of “negative globalism” seems over before it truly began. Much like the crisis of “debt and deficit” for the Australian economy, negative globalism, it would seem, has joined the Morrison museum of now-defunct political rhetoric. That can only be a good thing.
There are some serious problems with this cynical, flippant approach to international relations and strategic policy, which bear reflecting on. Consider the big issues confronting the world: the pandemic, the war in Ukraine, climate change, the race to the bottom on tax, unregulated tech giants, the rise of China. These issues are long term and they are global.
International relations and strategic policy cannot simply be switched on and off, or rebranded every two years with a new slogan in response to the latest focus group at the beginning of an election campaign. International relationships and strategic policy require sustained investment and commitment over years.
Thankfully, now that the doctrine of negative globalism is behind us, Australia might have the chance to reset and demonstrate a genuine commitment to tackling some of these huge global challenges. If that’s the case, there are some good ideas worth considering.
On the issue of climate change, Australia has huge economic opportunities. With serious investment in electric vehicle manufacturing, we can harness our rich mineral reserves and boost our export potential, reducing our reliance of imported fossil fuels.
And really, how can we look our Pacific neighbours in the eye on climate change as we plan to build 23 coalmines in NSW, open up a coal basin in Queensland, and approve vast gas basins in the Northern Territory and Western Australia?
On tackling big tech multinationals, we already have something to be proud of. To its credit, the Morrison government has played a global leadership role with our news media bargaining code — ensuring that the tech giants pay something back to the journalists and media organisations that produce the news and local content they profit from. The code as it stands isn’t perfect, but it’s a good start and the first of its kind in the world. We should be strengthening and working to proliferate it to support quality journalism across the globe.
On global economic inequality and tax evasion, Australia could be at the forefront of supporting calls from the G20 for better rules to stop multinational tax evasion, and a global floor on tax rates for multinationals to stop a corrosive race to the bottom. A rate of 15% is a start, but US President Joe Biden’s proposed 21% is better — and an even higher rate should be considered. We could be playing a positive role in tackling global inequality.
The possibilities are huge, now that negative globalism is dead. The real test will be whether the newly converted prime minister is sincere and strategic in his international cooperation — or whether this is just another tactical pivot in the short-term political game.
Morrison’s negative globalism is not dead, it is merely sleeping. He will re-awaken it when his donors want it to be awake.
C’mon Ben. You know the answer to the question. Short term political gain is the only thing that’s of interest to Morrison. If that requires a triple twist and pike it doesn’t take much to convince himself. As Sean Kelly so aptly demonstrated he doesn’t need convincing. Whatever it takes is all that’s required for him to convince himself that that is what he always believed.
“”And so the short-lived Morrison doctrine of “negative globalism” seems over before it truly began. Much like the crisis of “debt and deficit” for the Australian economy, negative globalism, it would seem, has joined the Morrison museum of now-defunct political rhetoric. That can only be a good thing.”
I understand the polite deference to the PM. But, seriously, this is no change of philosophy or doctrine. The Liar From the Shire holds no philosophy nor has the wit to develop any personal doctrine, save for one. Just say what your vapid advisers are advising is playing well with equally vapid focus groups. I used to think it unlikely such an morally empty idiot as Morrison could not be PM. But I forgot McMahon. He will end up a mere skid mark on parliamentary history because he lacks the talent or integrity to create change. Bring on Penny Wong to manage our foreign policy before we are laughed out of the global room.
Our commitment to zeroise fossil fuels by 2050 demands that we talk a lot more strongly than “reducing our reliance on imported fossil fuel”. After all, we can make virtuous “reductions” indefinitely without actually zeroising the stuff.
When it comes to transport fuels, fuel refineries already can start from domestic oil shale, gas or coal. With copious nonfossil electricity, they can also start from recycled CO2. This is not a theoretical whimsy, it is an achievable that needs to be initiated by angry voices in the streets. And