As Prime Minister Tony Abbott dusts himself down after what might be the
first of a number of challenges to his leadership, interest in Japan about
Australian politics is acute. Japanese political elites are focused on
Australia’s fratricidal tendencies not because they enjoy bloodsport, but
because Japan has a significant investment in the Abbott government.
If Abbott loses office, Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe will, oddly
enough, suffer a not inconsiderable setback.
Japan and Australia
have long been key trading partners. Since the mid-2000s they have worked
actively to broaden their co-operation into the security sphere.
Both sides of politics
have supported this process. Then-prime minister John Howard signed a landmark
security declaration in 2007. Labor governments inked agreements on defense
servicing and information sharing. Within the public service and defense force
there is a strong consensus driving closer work in a range of spheres.
But the election of
the Abbott government in 2013 led to a rapid acceleration of activity.
Tightening the links with Japan became a fundamental priority for the
government. This was perhaps symbolized with one of Abbott’s first utterances
on foreign policy as prime minister – the claim that Japan is Australia’s “closest
friend” in Asia.
Reciprocal state
visits in 2014 led to the rapid conclusion of the long-stalled free trade
agreement, a defense technology treaty and the prospect that Japan will be
closely involved in the development of Australia’s next-generation submarines.
Like Abe, Abbott seemed to be in a hurry to strengthen and deepen ties between
the two countries.
Many of the recent
developments in Australia-Japan relations are not uncontroversial. The free
trade agreement did entail considerable movement by Japan, but its conclusion
involved Australia giving up many of its aims on agricultural liberalization.
There was much consternation among others negotiating with Japan that Australia
had “broken ranks” and eased up pressure on the issue. The logic behind its
signature was overwhelmingly political.
Explicitly tying
Australia to Japan brought costs in the management of relations with China,
Australia’s top trading partner. These developments have been almost entirely
driven by Abbott. A change, whether to a different Liberal prime minister or to
a Labor government, would pose very significant questions about the
sustainability of recent trends.
For the Abe government
the doubts about Abbott’s longevity as prime minister are very real.
In the most immediate sense,
Japan is worried about the prospects of the submarine deal collapsing. Japan’s
defense industry is world-class but due to tight political constraints it has
not been able to access global markets for its products.
The benefits of both
financially doing well out of the submarine contract but also industrially
learning how to do this kind of business are very substantial. Without Abbott
these would be at some risk. To shore up support during the recent challenge,
Abbott apparently shifted policy to promise a “competitive evaluation process.”
Even with an Abbott government, the deal remains vulnerable to domestic
pressures.
But it is in the
larger strategic dimensions of the relationship that Abe would feel the loss of
his friend. The Abe government is overseeing a significant transformation of
Japan’s foreign and security policy. Prompted both by what it perceives to be a
dangerous international environment as well as a desire to shift how Japan sees
itself, Abe is attempting to create a Japan that has a strategic weight that
matches its economic heft.
This move is risky and
requires deft political handling and international support. It is here that
Abbott has been so vital. Australia’s position in the region and Abe’s vision
for the region are almost entirely aligned.
Nick Bisley is
executive director of La Trobe Asia and professor of international relations at
La Trobe University.
No comments:
Post a Comment