Today, increasingly warring major powers are undermining established international institutions. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine means that rapprochement is unlikely soon. Globalization is breaking down, accelerated by Western sanctions on Russia. Closer to home, Australia’s relationship with its largest trading partner, China, has never been worse, and the pandemic has exposed the dangers of long supply chains – a result of last year’s economic liberalization. In this fragmented and dangerous world, Labor does not have much to offer. This is partly because Albanese and his senior colleagues are pursuing a “small-scale” campaign and offering a few new ideas for most things. It also reflects Labor fears that they will be weak in terms of national security – a concern the government is trying to play with its brutal attacks on China – even though the parties’ positions are almost identical. However, new progressive foreign policy ideas are absent worldwide. Work is not alone. In a new article in the Australian Journal of International Affairs, which he co-authored with four other colleagues, we argue that the key to this is “progressive realism”. Our starting point is a pragmatic, “realistic” assessment of the key dynamics that shape modern international relations. Governments can provide security, basic necessities and sustainable development only by facing the realities of world politics. This means paying attention to the changing power distributions between states, but also to the outline of global value chains and to the effects of man-made climate change, for example. Here is a progressive second step. Instead of accepting the world as it is, a progressive foreign policy should seek to redistribute existing power formations. In recent years, progressive movements have focused more on issues of identity and integration rather than redistribution. This is a mistake. If progressive politics represents anything, it is a more equal distribution of wealth and life opportunities. Putting a redistributive logic at the heart of order-building activities recognizes that any world order based on unequal, unjust distributions of wealth, power, and position will be neither stable nor sustainable. Practice and ethics must therefore go hand in hand. Without the first assessment of the ability to achieve, progressive goals are impossible to achieve. Together, these two building blocks provide the foundation for a “progressive realism.” the basis for a center-left foreign policy agenda. What would this mean in practice? For example, a recent draft security agreement between the Solomon Islands and China has highlighted Australia’s relationship with the Pacific island nation. If implemented, the agreement could potentially allow China to base ships in the Solomon Islands, 2,000 miles (2,000 km) from Australia. Although its status is uncertain, Australia will have to work hard to prevent the signing of this agreement or similar agreement with any Pacific country. It will profoundly transform and destabilize the Pacific security order, intensifying pressure on Australia’s defense planning. However, the Solomon Islands is a sovereign state and Australian policymakers would do well to wonder why its government will enjoy this deal from the start. Many Australian commentators have accused China of “check diplomacy”, considering the Solomon Islands as a naive place. The islanders of Solomon, however, are not “swindlers.” Pacific governments do not necessarily see a world like Australia. While Australia sees China as a global bully, Pacific governments are realizing that their Chinese commitment gives them more leverage over Australia. ruler of the region. As the largest donor to the Pacific, Australia has often taken a strict approach, trying to dictate to the people of the Pacific Islands how to run their governments and public bodies. Much of her help also went into the pockets of Australian companies and consultants. Many in the area are intolerant of this. The Chinese presence limits Australian paternalism. It has also led Australia to commit more money to infrastructure, which the Pacific desperately needs. Moreover, while Australia sees China as the biggest threat to its security, the Pacific links this level of risk to climate change, not China. Australia’s saddening approach to climate change mitigation and disapproval of Pacific climate activism is flooding. Admittedly, China is not itself a model for climate change, but Australia’s claim to regional leadership has been hit. A progressive-realistic approach would recognize that China is in the region to stay, because the Pacific governments want it there. Therefore, leadership in the Pacific does not mean chasing China, as efforts to achieve this are likely to fail. Any world order based on an unequal, unjust distribution of wealth, power and position will be neither stable nor sustainable Australia must take seriously the preferences and needs of the Pacific. It must host, and even commit to, China in areas that benefit the Pacific and compete only where Australia’s security is clearly at stake, such as the aforementioned draft agreement. Australia could also strengthen Pacific sovereignty by supporting the ability of governments and civil society to analyze debt sustainability and increase the transparency of Chinese-funded projects. Australia should also support the ability of Pacific countries to formulate a regional policy agenda. Continuing to use the Pacific Islands Forum to achieve Australia’s security and trade goals only increases regional grievances. The short-term nature should be replaced by a long-term partnership commitment. A second part of a progressive realistic foreign policy in the Pacific would mean a change in Australia’s attitude towards climate change. If Australia were to take climate action seriously, that in itself would strengthen its claims to leadership. This could be enhanced by allocating significant financial resources to support climate adaptation, which should be the focus of Australia’s Pacific funding facility. This redistributive approach recognizes the immediacy of the Pacific countries’ timetables for ensuring their resilience, and even survival, in a climate-changing future. Progressive realism provides the means for a long-term vision focused on maximizing Australian influence on a range of strategic issues. We do not claim to have all the answers, but Australia needs to have an urgent debate on its foreign policy agenda. The left must play its part. Nick Bisley is Professor of International Relations and Dean of Humanities and Social Sciences at La Trobe University in Melbourne. Shahar Hameiri is Professor of International Politics and Director of Research at the University of Queensland School of Political Science and International Studies. They are not affiliated with any political party
