Raoul Heinrichs
BY Raoul Heinrichs
The Abbott government has received considerable praise for its diplomatic response to the tragic downing of MH17. While other countries vacillated, Canberra galvanised an international response by making clear its anger at the perpetrators and their supporters. It secured hasty passage of a UN Security Council resolution and deployed investigators to repatriate bodies and begin the pursuit of justice. All of this pointed to a level of coherence uncharacteristic of the government’s actions on the international stage so far.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the government has become emboldened by its early success. It has now overreached and lost sight of a core reality: that virtually every aspect of the crisis, including its own core set of objectives – the security of the crash-site, the return of bodies, and the integrity of any investigation.
A thorough investigation of the kind called for by Australia’s UN resolution is now all but impossible. Russian cooperation has evaporated in the face of persistent criticism, replaced by an embargo on Australian agricultural exports. The broader conflict has escalated, and Ukraine faces the very real threat of invasion. As the increasing futility of its own position becomes clear, the Abbott government has not stepped back. Rather, it has doubled down: Tony Abbott last week skipped the opportunity to host the US Secretaries of State and Defence in Sydney, to focus on MH17 in Europe. For a prime minister fervently devoted to the US alliance, this was a significant move. Julie Bishop, meanwhile, has kept up the criticism of Russia, earning a harsh rebuke from Moscow. She has also begun imploring China to condemn Russian actions. A rhetorical offensive against Russia might have been a cathartic process for Australia. It has also played well domestically. But diplomatically it has been self-defeating.
It encouraged the belief in Kiev that Putin was temporarily constrained, frozen like a deer in the headlights of international opinion. Seizing the opportunity, Ukrainian forces mounted a military offensive in the vicinity of the crash-site at precisely the moment when Australia needed at least a couple of weeks’ quiet to fulfil its consular objectives on the ground. This was not part of the plan. Abbott and Bishop had been leading an international chorus against Moscow, only to discover that the result of their efforts was to be undermined by the supposedly sympathetic government in Kiev. That leads us to the second mistake. Loud and ongoing condemnation of Russia has not so much tied Putin’s hands as backed him into a corner and forced him to swing. Finally, in a peculiar development, Bishop, fresh from meetings with her American counterparts, has called for China to pressure Russia over its role in the Ukraine. This could be taken at face-value, or as a simple attempt at driving wedge between Moscow and Beijing. But there’s almost certainly a more complex intention here.
China, like Russia, is a dissatisfied major power. It, too, is ring-fenced by US alliances. And like Russia, it has compelling strategic interests in rearranging the regional order, including by taking an assertive approach with its smaller neighbours. By calling for Chinese condemnation of Moscow, Bishop appears to be trying to lure China into taking a public position which could be used against it in future, should it play rough with the small countries along its periphery.
Needless to say, China has not taken the bait, and has most likely seen the ploy for what it is: an attempt by Canberra to extract Asian dividends from a European crisis. The only effect will be to further erode the already diminished standing of Bishop and Australia in the eyes of Beijing.
THE GUARDIAN
BY Raoul Heinrichs
The Abbott government has received considerable praise for its diplomatic response to the tragic downing of MH17. While other countries vacillated, Canberra galvanised an international response by making clear its anger at the perpetrators and their supporters. It secured hasty passage of a UN Security Council resolution and deployed investigators to repatriate bodies and begin the pursuit of justice. All of this pointed to a level of coherence uncharacteristic of the government’s actions on the international stage so far.
Perhaps unsurprisingly, the government has become emboldened by its early success. It has now overreached and lost sight of a core reality: that virtually every aspect of the crisis, including its own core set of objectives – the security of the crash-site, the return of bodies, and the integrity of any investigation.
A thorough investigation of the kind called for by Australia’s UN resolution is now all but impossible. Russian cooperation has evaporated in the face of persistent criticism, replaced by an embargo on Australian agricultural exports. The broader conflict has escalated, and Ukraine faces the very real threat of invasion. As the increasing futility of its own position becomes clear, the Abbott government has not stepped back. Rather, it has doubled down: Tony Abbott last week skipped the opportunity to host the US Secretaries of State and Defence in Sydney, to focus on MH17 in Europe. For a prime minister fervently devoted to the US alliance, this was a significant move. Julie Bishop, meanwhile, has kept up the criticism of Russia, earning a harsh rebuke from Moscow. She has also begun imploring China to condemn Russian actions. A rhetorical offensive against Russia might have been a cathartic process for Australia. It has also played well domestically. But diplomatically it has been self-defeating.
It encouraged the belief in Kiev that Putin was temporarily constrained, frozen like a deer in the headlights of international opinion. Seizing the opportunity, Ukrainian forces mounted a military offensive in the vicinity of the crash-site at precisely the moment when Australia needed at least a couple of weeks’ quiet to fulfil its consular objectives on the ground. This was not part of the plan. Abbott and Bishop had been leading an international chorus against Moscow, only to discover that the result of their efforts was to be undermined by the supposedly sympathetic government in Kiev. That leads us to the second mistake. Loud and ongoing condemnation of Russia has not so much tied Putin’s hands as backed him into a corner and forced him to swing. Finally, in a peculiar development, Bishop, fresh from meetings with her American counterparts, has called for China to pressure Russia over its role in the Ukraine. This could be taken at face-value, or as a simple attempt at driving wedge between Moscow and Beijing. But there’s almost certainly a more complex intention here.
China, like Russia, is a dissatisfied major power. It, too, is ring-fenced by US alliances. And like Russia, it has compelling strategic interests in rearranging the regional order, including by taking an assertive approach with its smaller neighbours. By calling for Chinese condemnation of Moscow, Bishop appears to be trying to lure China into taking a public position which could be used against it in future, should it play rough with the small countries along its periphery.
Needless to say, China has not taken the bait, and has most likely seen the ploy for what it is: an attempt by Canberra to extract Asian dividends from a European crisis. The only effect will be to further erode the already diminished standing of Bishop and Australia in the eyes of Beijing.
THE GUARDIAN
