Cavan Hogue

  • CAVAN HOGUE. Australian Foreign Policy. (Repost from Policy Series)

    Summary.

    Australian Foreign Policy is dominated by fear, defence issues, the American Alliance and the search for votes in marginal electorates. We talk about the importance of Asia but instinctively cleave to Europe and North America who are said to share our values but don’t always do so. We need to look beyond the next election and question some of our basic assumptions like whether the American Alliance gets us into more trouble than it gets us out of. We should also not get involved in peripheral issues which may serve American interests but have nothing to do with Australia. The world is changing and we must look to the future instead of focusing on the past. We need an integrated and independent foreign policy which takes a hard headed view of Australian interests and which keeps in mind the old but true saying that countries don’t have friends, only interests. (more…)

  • CAVAN HOGUE. NATO searches for role – with the help of Julie Bishop!

    NATO was created to counter the Soviet Union but when the Soviet Union disappeared NATO  did not follow suit so new enemies were required. Afghanistan was promoted by the USA because it harboured terrorists who attacked the USA. When the Taliban fought the Soviet Union the US provided weapons and support but the US now supported those opposed to the Taliban in a civil war. NATO plus Australia became involved in a country far from its heartland. Public rhetoric about moral factors clearly had nothing to do with it. (more…)

  • CAVAN HOGUE. Brexit and Russia.

    There has been some speculation about how Brexit will affect Russia. Probably not a lot politically but we can only speculate about the economic effects.

    No doubt the European Community will spend the next few years contemplating its navel and so be less focused on relations with Russia. The Europeans will be even less interested in Ukraine and this could be to Russia’s advantage but it could have a negative impact if this confusion leads to a stalling of efforts to reach a peaceful solution to the Ukrainian civil war. Russia would like a solution to be found so long as Russian interests were protected.

    However, there is no suggestion that the UK plans to resign from NATO and it is NATO that Russia sees as the main threat to its security. NATO is seen to be dominated by the USA and the USA by neocons which may not be that far from the truth. If Europeans are preoccupied with their internal problems this could even lead to greater US domination of NATO. The stationing of US missiles on the Russian border is unlikely to be changed by anything the UK does.

    It is too early to know how the Russian economy will be affected. There is much international panic about  what will happen to the world economy  but what will happen when things settled down remains to be seen. Obviously Russian oil and gas exports will be the major concern of the Russian Government.

    Cavan Hogue is a former Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

     

  • CAVAN HOGUE. Australia and its relationships with US and China.

    According to the Sydney Morning Herald, the US Studies Centre at Sydney University has produced a study which showed that 8 out of 10 Australians were only mildly concerned about the fact that, as they saw it, China already dominated Asia and they did not think China would go to war with the USA. They thought that the USA had peaked and was on the way out. This situation did not greatly concern them and their attitude was described as neutral. James Brown of the Centre described these attitudes as naive and said that Australians did not understand the importance of the American presence in the region. The head of the Centre, Professor Jackman, said he was going to get on a plane and go to Washington to tell them to ramp up their soft diplomacy because China was doing it better. (more…)

  • Cavan Hogue. Saudi Arabia involvement in 9/11 attack!

    The United States has long supported one of the most repressive regimes in the world. It invaded Iraq where women were able to do anything men could (which wasn’t much admittedly) but not Saudi Arabia where women are kept in subjection. It also ignored the fact that Saudi Arabia is home of the Wahabi brand of puritanical Islam that is the ideological inspiration for the Taliban and other extremist groups. Australia has trotted faithfully behind.

    The New York Times and the US Congress now claim that at least some parts of the Saudi ruling clique were involved in the 9/11 attacks on the USA and the US Government has begun to criticise some aspects of Saudi domestic policies. This has led to Saudi Arabia threatening to withdraw funds in the US but this may not be a serious threat since it could do as much damage to theSaudis as to the Americans.

    The Saudis are of course players in the kaleidescopic imbroglio in Syria and Iraq, a major oil producer and a strategic ally of the US. All of this poses a dilemma for countries that wish to export their version of human rights to countries like Saudi Arabia which are not interested in receiving it. It is perhaps one example of a wider phenomenon. Western countries do not always practice what they preach and then wonder why they are not trusted.

  • Cavan Hogue. Malcolm Turnbull, COAG and media confusion.

    Turnbull knew what he was doing.
    The media has turned on Malcolm Turnbull who is accused of ignorance. Media views seem to change even more often than political promises.  However,surely the PM knew why he called the meeting with the states. He knew they would reject it which is what he want​ed ​them to do. He now claims the moral high ground in denying their requests for money. Opinions will differ on whether this was a good decision but only time will tell if it worked -​whatever the media seesaw comes up with next.
    Politics has always been a rough business because only people with strong egos go into it so we should not be surprised at the jealousy and infighting that goes on. The electoral mob is fickle but so it would seem is the press and it remains to be seen whose judgment is better.

  • Cavan Hogue. The Defence White Paper and the China threat.

    ​

    In a paper distributed by the ANU East Asia Forum, Professor Hugh White has pointed out that the Defence White Paper makes two invalid assumptions: the post-Cold War US-led international order will be maintained and that it must be. He is right on both counts and I will not repeat his views here except to say I agree with them.

    The so-called “rules based” order is based on Western concepts and dominated by Western countries. Many other countries simply don’t accept the rules. Even some UN rules, including those we would like to keep, are open to question by some countries especially if you consider “interpretation”. Indeed, we and others break the rules when it suits us; the Coalition of the Willing is just one example of the preachers breaking the rules and we can find countless others. Australia, like the US and Western Europe, sees democracy as an article of faith and condemns as evil infidels anyone who questions the one true political faith. Not everyone agrees with our approach and in an increasingly multipolar world do we have the capacity or need to impose our values on others so long as they don’t try to impose theirs on us?

    America’s Gibbon will not appear for some time to come but US power is increasingly limited and its attempts to impose its will on others is weakening. Russians see the world differently and so do Chinese and US attempts to dictate policy to these countries are not succeeding. As Hugh White points out, nobody is going to invade the USA because the Americans would win such a war but America’s limited military actions have a poor record of success. This is mostly because they were poorly planned, lacked clear objectives, were based on bad intelligence and sometimes had a heavy ideological basis. Backing the losing side in a civil war is not good policy.

    Any threat assessment is based on capacity and motive. The only country with the capacity to invade Australia is the USA which is hardly likely to do so and nobody has the motive except perhaps in our capacity as a US ally.

    Our naval hardware can deter people smugglers and illegal fishing boats but is not able to do much else by itself except perhaps to defeat weak countries who are not likely to pose a threat to our interests. Without a carrier based task force we would not last very long outside the range of our land based aircraft in an action against a major power. All our major military actions since WW2 have been as adjuncts to the US, either legally (Korea and the first Gulf War) or illegally (Vietnam, Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan). However worthy, Timor and the Solomons were hardly serious military exercises. From the tone of the White Paper and public statements by the relevant ministers,it would appear that our future military actions will be proposed in Washington; we will theoretically be able to accept or reject participation but our track record so far suggests we will go along. Looking at the wars the US has led us into in the past, we can not be confident that future ones will be any better.

    The argument about supporting countries which share our values is a dubious one and we have to ask which values? Donald Trump’s or Ted Cruz’s religious fundamentalism? The USA is a very diverse country with many different values and a complex governmental process. Its decisions are based on the perceived interests of the US and the rhetoric is created to to suit. We might also meditate on that old but true saying that countries don’t have friends, only interests.

    It is clear that we are closely integrated into the US military and our public support for the US has not led others to see us a truly independent actor in military matters. As US proposals for basing bombers near Darwin show, the US takes it for granted that Australia will go along with US decisions which are based on US interests. Certainly, some regional countries want the US as a balance to  China but, on the other hand, US facilities in Australia and the perception that we are part of the US team could be the cause of attacks on Australia rather than a source of defence. If we were not a US ally, why would anyone want to attack us? If we had not got involved in the Middle East, why would Islamic extremists threaten us? Our military hardware and increased personnel are no defence against terrorism. We might also consider the Costa Rican approach. They disbanded their armed forces on the grounds that they couldn’t beat anyone else and if they had no armed forces nobody could accuse them of being a threat or see them as one. This is probably not a realistic option for Australia but it does make the point that action to build up military capacity invites a reaction.

    ​The White Paper does not spell out who is the enemy but it can only be China. The US and China both want to be number one in the region and Australia has clearly backed the USA.  India has a significant and growing blue water navy. It will be an important factor in our considerations, especially in the Indian Ocean. Australia talks about not taking sides between the US and China but walks with the US. We began by doing what we had always done without making a fuss but there is growing pressure on us to send ships or planes through the disputed area purely for the sake of doing so. Does this serve our interests? The US confrontation with China, as with Russia, is not about principle but about great power rivalry. The freedom of navigation issue is probably not what it is all about but is a peg on which to hang competition for influence between two great powers.

    To sum up, the White Paper identifies China as a potential threat and the USA as our dominant ally. The structure of our forces suggests that they are designed to operate with a major ally which is the USA and this is confirmed by the extent to which we are integrated with the US armed forces. The USA is not the Great Satan but nor is it God. It is a country like any other which sometimes gets things right and sometimes not but which acts in accordance with its own perceived interests which may or may not coincide with Australia’s. An anti-American stance on our part would be stupid but a much greater degree of independence in word and deed that showed a clearer understanding of Australian long term interests does not emerge from the White Paper. We can of course ask what real influence the White Paper will have on policy? Perhaps not much?

    Cavan Hogue was formerly Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia, and Ambassador to Thailand and Mexico, and High Commissioner to Malaysia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Our Eurocentric media.

    In January 2015, 12 people were killed in a terrorist attack on Charlie Hebdo in Paris.  The Australian media went into overdrive and gave saturation coverage for some days.  In January 2016, 32 people were killed and 66 wounded in a terrorist attack in the northern Cameroun town of Bodo. There was no significant coverage of the Reuters report about this in the Australian media. Boko Haram has killed more people in more countries than its brothers in arms al Qaeda  have killed in Europe.

    The day before the November 2015 attack in Paris that killed over 100 people a similar attack took place in Lebanon. There are far more people of Lebanese origin in Australia than of French origin but compare the coverage given to the two events. The Beirut attack was at least reported but got nothing like the attention that Paris got. Why?

    Quite obviously our media is Eurocentric if not racist and it probably follows that their audience is too. Why would the media spend a lot of time on something people are not interested in? So we conclude that for most Australians Africans are less human, or at least less important, than Europeans and the media reflects this.

    Media studies have shown that we all tend to focus more on countries seen to be more important to us or within our own region so the theory that it is all the fault of CNN and similar organisations doesn’t really hold up. Africa probably gets less attention in Asia and the Americas as well. The information is available to us all and we decide which animals are more equal than other animals.

    Cavan Hogue was former Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Mr Turnbull goes to Washington.

    Despite one welcome outburst of independence by refusing a request for more troops on the ground in the Middle East and a generally less sycophantic approach than most of his predecessors,the Prime Minister’s visit to Washington had all the usual hallmarks of a client presenting tribute to the Emperor.  The fact that Australian and American comentators felt the need to sound surprised at the refusal of a US request is instructive.

     The stress on shared values is interesting. Certainly we share many values with many Americans but do we endorse their gun culture? Do we share the values of Trump and his very many supporters? The USA is a complex country with many different cultures and values.When our leaders go to Japan they criticise the Japanese about the rights of whales and when they go to China about the rights of humans but they never criticise the Americans about human rights abuses in Guantanamo or their failure to conform with the the Nuclear Disarmamant Treaty (NPT).

    Do we accept the view that the USA is somehow exceptional and that it has a manifest destiny that gives it rights internationally that others don’t have? Quite possibly we do! President Obama, a liberal and moderate President who generally does represent those sections of American society with whom Australia has some affinity, has felt it necessary to boast of America’s economic and military might. The conflict between the USA and China, and Russia, is not really about values but about great power competition. Each of these three powers believes it has some kind of special destiny which makes it different from the rest of us so we should not be surprised if they all want to be supreme globally or at least within their traditional sphere of influence. Mr Turnbull made it clear that we are allied with one of those powers which suggests we will end up getting into more wars we should keep out of.

    However, Mr Turnbull’s approach was echoed by the mainstream Australian media response which in turn reflects Australian fear of the outside world and our need for a protector.True independence is not an Australian value.

    Cavan Hogue was former Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Shia vs Sunni in Iran and Saudi Arabia.

    Saudi Arabia’s execution of a Shia cleric who criticised its policies has exacerbated the split between Shia and Sunni Nations. Politics and religion have come together in a way that will be familiar to anyone who knows Northern Ireland. Sunni Saudi Arabia is the home of the deviant puritanical Wahabi sect which is rejected by most Muslims but provides the theological underpinning for al Qaeda and ISIS. It is also a US ally and therefore an Australian ally.

    So we now have the Shia nations supported by Russia and the Sunni nations supported by the US and its Western allies facing off publicly. However, it is not that simple. There are other tribal and splinter groups to muddy the waters. Furthermore, Saudi Arabia and ISIS are out of the same stable and we may well ask how a nation that beheads people it doesn’t like differs from ISIS?

    This also brings out the differences between Western rhtetoric and practice. The US criticises Assad’s human rights record but is a close ally of Saudi Arabia. Presumably the Americans will use the defence Franklin D. Roosevelt made when attacked for supporting the brutal Nicaraguan dictator Anastasio Somoza: “I know he’s a son of a bitch but he’s our son of a bitch”. Foreign intervention is not really about other people’s human rights but the foreigners’ national interests.

    There is no end in sight to the imbroglio in the Middle East. The Coalition of the Willing opened Pandora’s box and a host of old enmities came flying out. Nations like Iraq and Syria are colonial creations which are not so much failed states as states that never really were states as we understand the term. Attempts to recreate entities that were held together by force are not likely to succeed. We are seeing a struggle for political influence based on religion between the two major powers: Sunni Arab Saudi Arabia and Shia Persian Iran. Even if they reach agreement a host of other isuues will remain. For example, the Kurds surely have as much right to a homeland as the Israelis?

    Australia can have no influence there and our participation in what is effectively a regional civil war can only make us a target for extremists. This is not a crusade for freedom and democracy but a mess which only the Arabs and the Persians can sort out for themselves. Talk about “evil” is not helpful and we need to play a no trump hand. An independent Australian foreign policy would not follow the US into yet another fine mess.

    Cavan Hogue was formerly Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Turkey shoots down Russian aircraft.

    Russia supports the (Shia) Assad regime backed by Iran and others while Turkey supports the Sunni backed bySaudi Arabia, the USA and others. The Turks claim the Shia are terrorists while Russia supports them as allies of the Shia, (i.e. Assad) who support Russian strategic interests.. This is an oversimplified picture but it is relevant to the shooting down of a Russian fighter. The Turks claims it was in Turkish airspace which the Russians deny. Turkey probably overreacted but it is perfectly possible that Russians were attacking anti-Assad forces within Turkey or strayed over the border in pursuit of such forces. Either way the Russians are going to deny that they were to blame and the Turks are going to say it was all Russia’s fault.

    If left to themselves, Russia and Turkey will almost certainly sort it out with much rhetoric and ittle action but the danger is that NATO will get into the act either by itself or at the urging of Turkey. This would not be a good idea. All this does, however, highlight a basic problem in the whole situation. It is not just the bad guys, ISIS, versus the good guys, everyone else. It is a host of conflicting factions and interests which overlap and vary like the bits of a kaleidascope. The more the parties involved insist on a goodies and baddies analysis the less likely it is that a solution will be found.

    Everyone has an interest in opposing ISIS but how do you do this? As has been wisely said, ISIS is not an army or a state but an Ideal. Western countries find it hard to accept that local people see the West as the baddies although a brief foray into history might show them why.

    This situation is unlikely to lead to wider conflict.  US increased training of Ukrainians to “combat Russian aggression” is a greater threat. The behaviour of both Russia and the US takes us back to the Cold War but more accurately should be seen as a contest for influence between two great powers. It has nothing to do with morals or political systems. The common fight against ISIS in particular and terrorism in general creates a bond which puts pressure on all parties to work together at least against ISIS. The question is, what happens next? The Coaition of the Willing opened Pandora’s box. Who will put the lid back on it?

    Cavan Hogue is former Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. The Paris attacks.

    The Paris attacks are yet another piece of savagery by young alienated Muslims but the question we need to ask is what is the real cause? Should we be searching the Koran or should we be looking at what motivates young idealists to die for a cause and why are these ones doing it? We may not like their cause and we may condemn their cruelty but that is not the point. Should  we perhaps be looking at the Red Guards, the IRA, the Nazis, the Khmer Rouge the Holy Inquisition, the young Europeans who fought for the Spanish Republic and hosts of other examples?

    Just as the Christian Devil can cite scripture to his purpose so can Shaitan do the same with Islamic scripture. Are these attacks really about Islam or are they political, emotional and psychological? The illegal invasion of Iraq by the Coalition of the Willing opened Pandora’s Box and let loose sectarian hatreds and fanatics of dubious sanity. It built on decades of Western aggression in the Middle East.  Thus, the attacks are not just on Westerners but also by Sunni on Shia and vice versa. Shades of Belfast! The creation of Israel is seen by Arabs not as freedom for an people oppressed by Christians and who have through the centuries been treated decently by Muslims but as an invasion of Arab lands. This simply adds fuel to the fire.

    Of course this kind of terrorism simply invites the victims to hit back and may well push Europe and North America to up the ante. However, is there a viable military solution? Even if we could eliminate ISIS the Sunni/Shia conflict would remain and this is complicated by tribal allegiances. Then what are we going to do about the Kurds who want a homeland which is surely a reasonable demand but is opposed by Turkey, Iran and Iraq? As the Israel/Palestinian conflict has shown every time one side attacks the other the immediate response is a revenge attack dressed up as teaching the others a lesson.

    Finally, the attack is likely to lead to an emotional response from Europeans which will make it harder for their governments to take more refugees and quite possibly lead to violence against refugees who have been accepted or who arrive illegally. Will it make young people more or less likely to get involved with messianic cults like ISIS or will it make no difference?

    Australians naturally feel sympathy for France and so we should but we are a marginal player in this game. We can talk about it being a world problem and about how we will play our part but nothing we do is going to make a difference. Our participation in  the military action in Iraq and Syria simply makes us a potential target for terrorists as a proxy for the US. We are also selective. Compare the media coverage of the terrorist bomb on a Russian aircraft which killed twice as many people as the massacre in Paris.

    These are all very hard questions to answer and governments naturally want to reassure their people that they are doing something. But what are they doing and is it effective? By focusing on police and military action are we attacking the symptoms rather than the cause? Certainly we need to treat the symptoms but if don’t know what the disease is, how can we do more than treat the symptoms?

    Cavan Hogue was former Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Russian airliner and ISIS.

    The almost gleeful attacks by columnists and cartoonists on Vladimir Putin when the Russian plane went down were in very bad taste. The difference between this and MH17 is clear. MH17 was shot down by accident in Ukrainian territory probably by rebels who thought they were shooting down a warplane from Kiev. It was not a deliberate act by Russians, let alone ordered by Putin. (Russia could however be criticised for not putting more pressure on those who control the crash site to cooperate with the investigators – most likely they know what happened and don’t want to admit it.)
      The Russian airliner was almost certainly blown up deliberately by ISIS because Russian warplanes are in action against ISIS. It could just as easily have been an American or Australian plane for the same reason. One interesting conclusion must be that Russia is in fact targetting ISIS fighters otherwise why would they target a Russian aircraft?
    This is yet another example of the bias and ignorance on the part of mainstream media and politicians in Australia of both Russia and the Middle East. It is interesting to note that the Dutch led report on MH17 specifically criticised the Kiev Government for not closing the relevant air space but did not suggest that this was a deliberate act by Russia. The Australian media played down the Report’s criticisms of Kiev and got stuck into Putin instead.
    Putin has clear aims in Syria. It is in Russian strategic interests to support Assad or anyone who will give them what he gives them just as it is in US interests to ally itself with Saudi Arabia. Neither Syria or Saudi Arabia is a bastion of democracy and human rights. Australia as usual is there on the American coat tails. This is a very complex situation and a solution is hard to find. The US seems to be working with the Kurds but will it support an independent Kurdish homeland against Syria,Turkey and Iran? The whole muddle is not just about ISIS – bad as they undoubtedly are – but also about Kurdish desire for a homeland like Israel, Sunni versus Shia, Iran versus Arabs and all kinds of tribal groups.
    This whole situation is not about different ideologies but about great power rivalry and local conflicts all wrapped up in moral rhetoric.
    Cavan Hogue was former Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia. 

  • Cavan Hogue. MH17

    The Dutch led report doesn’t really tell us anything much we couldn’t already work out but it does highlight some valid points.

    That the missile was Russian is hardly news but the report does give us the make, However, while theoretically this might help trace who bought it, missiles have moved around so much that all parties can disclaim ownership and in any case the Russians are certainly capable of faking it. But since all three parties involved have Russian missiles this is not a smoking gun and the report makes it clear that both Russia and Ukraine have this type of missile.

    The report does point the finger of blame at the government in Kiev for not closing the air space over the war zone. While the prime responsibility must remain with whoever shot down the plane, Kiev cannot escape censure for taking risks – presumably for the fees to be collected.

    It is also hard to disagree with the observation that this must surely have been an accident. Nobody had anything to gain by shooting down a Malaysian airliner. The conspiracy theories floating around which blame one party or another for doing it deliberately cannot be taken seriously. The Ukrainian Government’s argument that it was a deliberate act by Russia suffers from the same lack of credence as the Russian claim that it was Ukraine that shot down the plane by air to air rockets. Both claims are propaganda pure and simple.

    The report does not tell us who pushed the button or ordered it pushed. The Dutch criminal investigation taking place may or may not come up with evidence that would hold up in a court of law. No doubt everyone will continue to blame everyone else while the tabloids and shock jocks will show their customary preference for lurid rhetoric over evidence. Nevertheless, the prime suspect must be an incompetent rebel in separatist controlled territory who thought he was shooting down a Ukrainian warplane. Whether the hunt for the blood of that individual will ever bear fruit only time will tell. In the meantime, public statements by all the parties involved will be driven more by their political interests than by a concern for the truth.

    Cavan Hogue was formerly Australian ambassador to USSR and to Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Russia in Syria and Australian implications.

    What are Australia’s objectives in the Middle East imbroglio? The simple answer is that it is about the American Alliance. We see ourselves as part of a global alliance led by the USA and generally supported by European powers: countries that  “share our values”. We are there because they are. Therefore the fact that our military presence makes no difference to the situation in Syria or in defeating ISIS is not really relevant. Nor is it relevant that our military presence does nothing to discourage idealistic young Australians from joining ISIS and may even encourage them. Neither is it relevant that the US doesn’t really know what it is doing there. But of course domestic politics in Australia are always relevant.

    Russia does have clear strategic objectives in supporting Bashir al Assad just as it does in Crimea and Ukraine. Western pressure, including sanctions, only entrenches Putin’s domestic popularity because he is seen as a strong man who defends the Motherland against foreign oppressors. So Putin does not need to give in to American and NATO huffing and puffing. Russians distrust NATO and even more the US who they do not believe have any right to the moral highground – especially since it was the illegal Coalition of the Willing that opened Pandora’s Box. So Putin will negotiate but will not give anything important away.  Who is the greater evil: ISIS or Bashir al Assad?  Furthermore it is increasingly obvious that the current strategy is not working so the Americans must eventually go back to the drawing board which means either go home, get heavily involved militarily on the ground or work with Assad. Russia holds the cards in the Ukraine/Crimea situation and no doubt believes it has the winning cards in Syria also. While the aircraft that strayed into Turkish airspace probably was a navigational error as the Russians claim, the Russians argue that everyone opposed to Assad is a terrorist and their aim is to support their rooster against “terrorists”. Therefore they may well be targeting non-ISIS groups opposed to Assad but they are not likely to listen to sermons from NATO. It could also be a ploy to pressure others to support Assad. As the US found out when it armed the Taliban against the USSR, it is not always easy to know who are the goodies and who are the baddies.

    Australia is a babe in the Middle Eastern woods where various factions fight other factions in an ever changing kaleidoscope. We would be well advised to keep out of the region and stop kidding ourselves that we have influence. The US expects us to toe the line but we could try to persuade them to be more realistic and less ideological .However our track record is not encouraging. Russia sees us as simply a camp follower of the USA and so is not really interested in our views .Prime Minister Turnbull is showing some awareness of reality by noting that a military solution is not an option and seems to understand that our military presence in the region is more likely to radicalise young idealists than calm them down. It will be interesting to see what develops.

    Cavan Hogue was formerly Australian ambassador to USSR and to Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Russian and Chinese naval exercises.

    From August 20-28 Russia and China will conduct a large scale naval exercise in the Russian Far East and the Sea of Japan. Russia will send 20 ships and China seven plus11 aircraft. They will practice air defence and anti-submarine drills as well as a beach landing.

    Both countries are publicly beating up their defence ties as part of a closer relationship. Vladimir Putin and Xi Jin Ping have met and made appropriate noises about their growing friendship. Clearly both countries see advantage in closer relations as they face criticism from the USA and some other countries.

    We sometimes forget that while its primary focus is Europe Russia is a Pacific power and sees itself as a global power. Western sanctions are driving it to seek friends elsewhere. Similarly, while China’s focus is primarily on Asia Pacific it also has pretensions to being a global power. Both countries resent what they see as American meddling in their affairs.

    Given the long history of troubled relations between the two it is hard to know how long this rapprochement will last. Is it just a reaction to outside criticicism or will it develop into something deeper? At least in the short term, the more both countries see themselves, rightly or wrongly, the victims of foreign interference, the more they will move away from the West and seek friends elsewhere. Both do want good relations with the the USA and others but on their terms.

    Watch this space.

    Cavan Hogue was Australian Ambassador to Mexico, USSR, Russia and Thailand, and High Commissioner to Malaysia. 

  • Cavan Hogue. When elephants fight, kangaroos can be trampled.

    Current Affairs

    The growing tension in the South China Sea poses a number of problems for Australia. We want to ensure that our access through these important waterway and air routes are not impeded but we want to do so without appearing to take sides in a confrontation between China and the USA. We also need to take into account the concerns of other regional countries which are important to us.

    We should not lose sight of China’s growing assertiveness nor deny that it can act aggressively but nor should we kid ourselves that the US is very different in its international relations. The bottom line is that we have a contest between the ageing champ and the comeback kid.

    When Khrushchev tried to put missiles in Cuba the US almost went to war so why should we be surprised if China sees US actions in its neighbourhood as potentially aggressive. Given the US history in Latin America and elsewhere they are hardly in a position to claim the moral high ground. The Monroe Doctrine proclaimed a sphere of influence in the Americas and China almost certainly has its equivalent of the Monroe Doctrine.

    Australia is seen as an American client state by many countries and it is easy to see why. China will probably assume that we will cave in to any pressure mounted by the USA and our history suggests that they are probably right. Is this in our interests? American interests and Australian interests do not always coincide. Australia needs to show more sophistication and more independence than we normally do without descending into some kind of visceral anti-Americanism..

    The American Empire may well have begun its decline but it is a long way off its fall and a realistic foreign policy will recognise this. Similarly, a realistic foreign policy will recognise that China sees itself as regaining its proper place in the world after two centuries of humiliation by the West. By identifying ourselves with “the West” we become members of that dubious gang in Chinese eyes. We need to find a path between the competing interests of other countries. What does Australia have to gain by taking sides?

    When elephants fight, kangaroos can be trampled beneath them.

     

    Cavan Hogue was formerly Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia, and Ambassador to Thailand and Mexico, and High Commissioner to Malaysia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Australian Foreign Policy

    Fairness, Opportunity and Security
    Policy series edited by Michael Keating and John Menadue

    Summary.

    Australian Foreign Policy is dominated by fear, defence issues, the American Alliance and the search for votes in marginal electorates. We talk about the importance of Asia but instinctively cleave to Europe and North America who are said to share our values but don’t always do so. We need to look beyond the next election and question some of our basic assumptions like whether the American Alliance gets us into more trouble than it gets us out of. We should also not get involved in peripheral issues which may serve American interests but have nothing to do with Australia. The world is changing and we must look to the future instead of focusing on the past. We need an integrated and independent foreign policy which takes a hard headed view of Australian interests and which keeps in mind the old but true saying that countries don’t have friends, only interests.

    Three major difficulties.

    Thee are three major areas of difficulty at the moment. The first is the low level of political debate amongst our politicians especially in foreign policy and our inability to think beyond the next election. The second is that far too much foreign policy is driven by narrowly focused domestic politics where ministerial and media time is frittered away on peripheral issues at the expense of what really matters. The third is that foreign policy is dominated by relations with the USA and this alliance is dominated by defence issues which for the most part serve American interests first. We should take a more independent, even neutral, stance in our international relations. This should not be seen as anti-Americanism but as paying them the compliment of doing what they do – putting our own interests first.

    Subservience to the US.

    Australian foreign policy is subservient to the USA and the implications of this have not been thoroughly thought through. A major problem for any political party wanting to make basic changes is that we Australians are terrified of standing on our own two feet; we need a sugar daddy. We have a long history of being afraid of the outside world and lacking confidence in our ability to handle it. We should pursue a foreign policy that will give us dignity instead of being seen as the monkey to the US organ grinder. We need to understand our neighbours better and avoid mindless public comments that may resonate with the shock jocks in Australia but are counter-productive overseas. If we want to maintain some kind of alliance with the US it should be much looser and we should stand up for ourselves. We should not get involved in things that are not in our interests. The invasion of Iraq, the current imbroglio in the Middle East and Afghanistan are not serving Australian interests. All they have done is make us a target for terrorists. We are not part of Europe or North America. We talk about an Asia first policy but we don’t practice it. We compare ourselves with Europe or North America both in government and the media. Our major intelligence sharing arrangements are with four white English speaking countries. We are locked into a defence alliance with the USA which is not just about defence but which dominates our approach to the world. We say we don’t want to take sides between China and the US but the US doesn’t see it that way and we are locked into arrangements. That said, joining the Chinese led AIIB is a step in the right direction because, aside from economic issues, it is putting Australian interests ahead of US interests and pressure on us not to join.

    What not to do.

    Our concern over Ukraine and Russia is a typical example of what not to do. Ukraine is a European problem. NATO was created to contain the Soviet Union and seems to put Russia in the same boat. Australia is not in the North Atlantic. We mindlessly join the US which wants to maintain its position as the No. 1 world power. Russia is undoubtedly meddling in Ukraine but the US has a long history of doing the same thing in its region and even beyond. Neither country can claim the international moral high ground. We would be well advised to stay out of a complex and sensitive subject rather than engaging in hairy chested histrionics to please conservative Americans and look good domestically to unthinking Australians.

    The threat!

    For a country that faces no identifiable external threat we give far too much attention to military matters. We have made ourselves a target for terrorists by our identification with the West in general and the USA in particular. The threat has been increased by our participation in ill-fated exercises in the Middle East and Afghanistan which did not further Australian interests. It is probably too late to change our image but we should at least try by pulling out of these commitments and avoiding nonsensical public claims that our military participation in the Middle East somehow protects us from terrorism. The problem with this of course is that our participation in these activities is tied up with our integration into the US military both in policy terms and increasingly in personnel and materiel. We even had an American general telling us recently, in effect, that we should get closer to Indonesia because this would serve American defence interests in the region. He did have the courtesy to suggest it might also serve ours since we were part of the grand alliance.

    What threats exist? Whose ships are our submarines going to sink? Why do we need to be a strong military power? Who is going to invade us? The only foreseeable way in which we could get involved in military activity in our region is as part of a US operation. In other words, the American alliance is more likely to drag us into trouble than to get us out of it.

    US decline!

    The world is in a state of flux with old certainties no longer certain. This is particularly true of our region. It is too early to get worked up about the decline of the West but while the fall may be a long way off I think a future Gibbon will write that the American Empire has begun its decline. Because things are changing, we should not get locked into positions that we may find it hard to get out of. Flexibility must be our watchword. None of this should be read as an attack on the USA or an argument that we should become anti-American. Although some might argue that the squeaky wheel gets the most oil, it is in our interests to maintain good relations with the USA but not to be dominated.

    We have begun to adapt in some ways. Joining the Chinese AIIB despite US lobbying against it was a positive step. We have established important relations with China and Japan although it is hard to maintain a fine balance between these two countries. We do, however, have a tendency to lecture other countries in the region on how they should run things internally. This is not well received. While we should not apologise for our views on government and human rights we must avoid sliding into arrogant missionary activity.

    We have had some successes with trade policy but Australia faces an uncertain future which most Australians don’t understand. Promotion of our trade interests should be a focus of our foreign policy and this is mixed up with domestic politics. The world does not owe Australia a living and there is a very real danger that our standard of living will drop because we can’t compete internationally. If we do not adapt domestically we may well find that the late Lee Kuan Yew was right to warn us we could become the poor white coolies of Asia.

    Our diplomatic service.

    We need to strengthen our diplomatic service and pay less attention to amateur advisers whose knowledge of and interest in international relations is in inverse proportion to their devotion to reading the entrails of domestic polls and focus groups. We had perhaps the most respected and professional diplomatic network in Asia but this seems to have been eroded by budget cuts. There is no substitute for experience and professionalism.

    In short, Australia needs to start from scratch and take a hard headed look at how traditional attitudes will serve our interests in the future. All aspects of our relations with the outside world form an integrated whole and we cannot decide policies on each of them in isolation. Clausewitz was right to link diplomacy and war so we cannot separate foreign policy and defence policy. Our defence policy colours the way other countries perceive us as a nation. If we want to be respected as something more than a junior partner in an alliance of countries whose location and interests are far distant from us then we need to stop relying on others. Despite the fine rhetoric, the United States has always remained fiercely independent and has always followed policies which served its own interests first – or at least which it perceived to serve its interests. We should pay the Americans the compliment of imitating them. 

    Cavan Hogue was Australian Ambassador to Mexico, High Commissioner to Malaysia, Ambassador to the USSR and Russia, and Ambassador to Thailand.

  • Cavan Hogue. Australia will not be safer.

    Australia’s upping the ante in Iraq is a recipe for disaster. It is hard to see anything positive coming out of it.
    Mr. Abbott said the request came from the Iraqi Government and the USA. As in the past, the request from the USA was almost certainly what it is all about plus the domestic need to show how hairy his chest is.
    Did the Americans have to lean on Iraq to invite us this time as well?
    As Vietnam showed, the trainers will end up as combat troops and if the Americans ask for more we will give it.We have all been training Iraqi troops for years to no avail.  How will Australians improve morale and loyalty among the Iraqi army troops?
     This is Vietnam all over again. We are intervening in a civil war which has nothing to do with us. Iraq is a mishmash of competing factions only one of which is the Iraqi Government.When it fails we will be tarred yet again with the same brush as the US.
     This escalation will not make Australia safer as the Government claims but, on the contrary, will increase the likelihood of terrorism in Australia. How will it decrease the attraction for young Australians of joining ISIS.?
     Where will the money come from in a tight budget? What will be sacrificed to pay for this exercise?
    The Opposition’s support of this foolishness can only be described as depressing.
    Cavan Hogue is a former Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Petroshenko visit.

    President Petroshenko should be received courteously and his visit should be used to seek further trade with Ukraine. There is no reason to avoid cordial relations with Ukraine but our Government is going a lot further than that.

    Ukraine is a distant European country where we have limited interests. The Prime Minister appears to be using it as an excuse to attack Russia. Mr Abbott was a successful Leader of the Opposition but he is finding that building is a lot harder than demolition. President Putin provides an enemy on whom he can exercise his attack dog skills and Mr Abbott has used the MH17 tragedy for domestic purposes. Creating foreign threats to draw attention away from domestic failures is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Australia is not a European country and should leave European problems to Europeans.

    The Prime Minister announced that Australia will set up a resident embassy in Kiev to replace the existing dual accreditation from Poland. What this is supposed to achieve is not clear. Presumably the Foreign Minister will have to find the money & staff from an already overstretched budget to provide the resources for this venture. Was she consulted before an announcement was made? Was DFAT asked for an assessment of where Ukraine stands in our foreign policy priorities? Do we need more expenditure at a time when everyone is being asked to cut expenditure?  Or is this Sheriff Abbott shooting from the hip again?

     

  • Cavan Hogue. Russia and the G20

    Contrary to some media reports the G20 did not mention Russia in any of its documents and criticism came only from the West. Nothing happened which is likely to change Russian attitudes or actions.

    The Russia bashing by Australian politicians and media is not likely to worry Russia and the criticism by Western nations is not having any effect either. It is worth noting that claims about “world criticism” of Russia is in fact criticism by Europe and North America with Australia trotting along faithfully behind or indeed jumping out in front.. Countries in our region have not joined in and China has got closer to Russia as a result of the sanctions. Australian attacks, especially about MH17, have of course been for domestic consumption. Our media tends to equate the world with Europe and North America.

    Criticism of Russia at the G20 was restricted to a minority of those present and even they were more interested in economics, Ebola and climate change. The final communique did not mention Russia nor did any of the agreed supporting documents. So perhaps the G20 showed how little the rest of the world is interested in this issue? Tony Abbott’s pathetic opening address can only have given him less credibility with those present about anything.

    Sanctions have not deterred Russia and its counter sanctions are having economic effects on some other countries. Australia lost agricultural markets and recent reports claim that German industry has been affected. Subsequent statements by Putin and the continuation of Russian military supplies to the separatists in Ukraine have not changed in any way as a result of the G20 which is not surprising since it is an economic organisation. Criticism of Russia came from countries which have been saying the same things for some time and were made outside the framework of the Meeting. The only comment from outside Western countries came from UN Secretary General Ban Ki Moon who urged Russia to use its influence with the separatist for peace. Mr Abbott’s unusual claim that he has intelligence linking Russia to the downing of MH17 has been matched by an even more dubious doctored photo from Moscow claiming it was Kiev.

    Vladimir Putin is an authoritarian nationalist who wants Russia to be respected throughout the world as a great power and a major player in world politics. He also wants friendly states around Russia’s borders and sees Western criticism of Russia as a resurgence of Cold War attitudes. This is why he gets 87% approval rates in domestic polls. While polls always need to be taken with quite a few grains of salt, like it or not this is how a majority of |Russians see things. True not all Russians agree with him and, while not quite a new Stalin, he does not deal kindly with opponents. What politician is going to change an approach which gets strong domestic support because of foreign criticism?

    Australia is not a serious player in Europe and Ukraine is a European problem. The main result of European pressure on Russia has been a rapprochement between Russia and China and greater Russian interest in the rest of the world. We may ask how this serves Australian interests? Instead of identifying ourselves with the West and its problems might we not be better advised to focus on our own neighbourhood? Unfortunately the answer is that despite all our talk about Asia and our growing Asian population, our leaders still see us as a far flung extension of Europe or perhaps as the 51st state of the union.

    Australia should not try to make a big noise about issues that are not of direct interest to Australia but should focus on promoting clearly identifiable Australian national interests. We do not have to like the kind of Russia that Putin likes but why do we have to make a big issue of it? The G20 did not reveal great public concern by countries outside of the West. Hairy chested attacks on Russia may play well with the shock jock boviators who, to borrow Hamlet’s expression, are capable of nothing but inexplicable dumb show and noise but they do not enhance Australia’s reputation as a responsible country.

    Cavan Hogue was formerly the Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. The new Vietnam.

    ​We seem to be rushing forward to the past in the Middle East and it looks increasingly like a rerun of Vietnam which began with a request from the Saigon Government (that we had to ask for), initial popular support for intervention against the Communist bogey, followed by disillusionment and defeat. A domestic political asset became a liability,

    All the talk about evil skirts around the fact that however demented ISIL may be they are attracting young idealists to their ranks. Why? They are able to draw on longstanding distrust of Christian Europe and its American offshoots which goes back to the Crusades.This distrust was exacerbated by Western colonialism and the mess Europe made  of the region after World War 1. The more ISIL can push the West into involvement, the more they can build on existing distrust of the West. Australia is not a serious player in this region but we have identified ourselves with the Western nations who are seen as the bad guys in the Middle East where there are more factions than we have even heard of. This, plus our grandstanding over Ukraine, tells our Asian neighbours that we do not put our money where our mouth is.

    The Middle East is a mess and there are wider implications but what can outsiders do that will not just make things worse? Ultimately the people of the region have to solve their own problems. The Western track record in Iraq suggests it might do better to butt out.

    It is true that our identification with the West made us a target for terrorists before the present imbroglio but our strident public approach to current events can only increase that threat. Australia as such is not important enough to interest international terrorists but we might be seen as a soft proxy target for the USA and Western Europe. The domestic danger is that we will create more resentful Moslem youths than we stop. Tough security measures are only first aid.

    We have managed not to get involved with the Lord’s Army in Africa and other sick psychopaths around the world so why single out this current bunch of loonies? Presumably we are there to support the Americans and for domestic political reasons.

    You have to feel sorry for the Kurds who have been treated badly by everyone. Surely their case for a homeland is just as good as that of anyone else but this would take territory from Turkey, Iraq and Iran so they are likely to remain a persecuted minority. The US let them down after the first Gulf War and nobody is going in to bat for them now. Some of them at least will continue to fight for a homeland.

    Given the size of the problem and the size of our contribution Australia’s effort against ISIL is token and will not make any difference to the situation on the ground.  We are being drawn into a complex quagmire far from our shores and our leaders have yet to tell us which national interest is being served and how, let alone where it will all end.

    The Coalition of the Willing opened Pandora’s Box and I fear we have now joined the Coalition of the Lemmings.

  • Cavan Hogue. Stick versus Carrot in Ukraine?

    A major problem with the situation in Ukraine is that you can’t believe anything anyone says because they all have their political agendas to push and don’t hesitate to lie.

    Crimea, Odessa and the Donbas region of Eastern Ukraine have Russian majorities who would produce a majority for being part of Russia in any free and fair plebiscite. So the issue is one of self-determination versus territorial integrity. There is also the question of Russian minorities elsewhere but only where they occupy a definable territorial area.

    Russia wants friendly states around it and Putin has pushed a highly nationalistic line domestically which has been popular. He says he will protect Russians wherever they may be.  Domestic perceptions are vital to his continued success at home.. He is now in a position where he either bows publicly to Western pressure which will do him great harm domestically or continues to stand up to the wicked West which will be popular domestically..There is nothing unusual about Russians telling porkies about what they are doing. This is typical Russian behaviour and not unknown in the West.

    It is increasingly clear that Russia has gone from arming and supporting the separatists (cf the US in Nicaragua and Chile) to the insertion of “volunteers” to actually fight (cf US and Australian advisers in Vietnam). It is highly unlikely that Russia would go beyond the Russian speaking areas because that would be a whole new ball game where the Russians would find themselves amidst a hostile population. However, they are unlikely to stop supporting the separatists and presumably the ultimate aim is separate Russian states well disposed towards Russia.

    Putin’s reminder that Russia is a major nuclear power should be seen as simply tweaking the American nose because he knows that neither the US or the Europeans will commit troops. Kiev’s talk about full scale war is an obvious plea for stronger Western support which goes beyond threats of sanctions.

    The problem for the West is that sanctions will only strengthen Putin’s resolve and any solution must involve some kind of face saving formula which the Ukrainians will not be interested in finding. The Europeans are also vulnerable to counter sanctions from Russia in a way the Americans are not. Ukrainian membership of NATO would probably be seen by Russia like the US saw Soviet missiles in Cuba and, in any case, the Europeans would not be interested in this. Pushing NATO right up to the border with Russia was not a smart move.

    Australia’s hairy chested approach has lost our farmers export markets and achieved nothing else. We are not a serious player but are vulnerable if Russia wants to punish the monkey as a way of getting at the American organ grinder. Our approach has served to show our neighbours that, for all our talk about Asia, Europe is still our focus otherwise why would we be so strident about what is essentially a European problem? The Government’s aim is probably to appear tough domestically and to get our tummy tickled by Washington.

    So, in summary, Putin shows no sign of backing down and the West shows no sign of going beyond ineffective sanctions. The only solution would seem to be some kind of autonomy for the Russian speaking area of Ukraine achieved through a negotiated political solution. Russia has been backed into a corner where bowing to sanctions would be an enormous loss of face and the strident rhetoric by the West makes it hard to back down without loss of face.Perhaps less stick all round and a bit more carrot?

    Cavan Hogue was former Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. Russia boycott.

    Anyone with any knowledge of Russia could have told the Prime Minister that
    his gratuitous public and personal attacks on Mr Putin and on Russia in
    general would lead to retaliation. Russia was left with no other option
    except humiliation and Russians are too proud and too sensitive to accept
    that. So the Australian Government must have known that banning of our
    exports was the most probable Russian response and therefore prepared
    contingency plans to deal with this event. So why all the panic now? Why has
    the National Party not protected the interests of its constituents simply so
    Mr Abbott can engage in a contest with Mr Putin to show who has the hairiest
    chest?

    This is not about MH17 although our attacks on Russia after that can only
    have made things worse. The sanctions and insults to which Russia is
    responding took place before the plane was shot down. While we do not know
    for sure who did it, the most likely explanation is that some incompetent
    separatist thought he was shooting down a plane out of Kiev. Whether Russia
    was directly or indirectly involved is not clear. What would Russia have to
    gain by deliberately shooting down a Malaysian airliner? If stupidity will
    explain something, we shouldn’t look for devious plots.

    The Australian Government claims to have an Asian oriented policy so why are
    we getting involved in a European problem in which we have no direct
    interest? How will publicly insulting Russia promote our interests? And when
    will the Government explain what Australian interests have been served that
    outweigh the damage done to innocent Australian farmers?

    Cavan Hogue is a former Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Cavan Hogue. The hype of D-Day

    ​

    The hype about the Normandy Landings on D-Day reflect a deep seated prejudice in the Australian press, public and politicians. Tony Abbot wants to use our minimal contribution to milk the occasion so he can be seen amongst the great and powerful and this is understandable but the claim by Abbott and our media that D-Day was the turning point in the European theatre is nonsense.l  The pivotal battles were Kursk and Stalingrad and it was the Russians who took Berlin thus ending the war in Europe – not the Western allies.Most German and allied casualties took place on the Eastern Front and something like two thirds of German forces were committed there.

    The Normandy Landings opened the long awaited second front and relieved to some extent the pressure on the Eastern Front where most of the action had taken place and continued to take place. D-Day did liberate France, Belgium and Holland quicker than they otherwise would have been liberated and enabled the French to play a part in the taking of Paris. No doubt these three countries preferred to be liberated by the Western allies rather than the Eastern ally, However, the Western allies did not face anything like the main German forces. Germany preferred to try to hold the Red Army at bay until they could surrender to the West because they knew how badly they had treated the Russians and what retribution they could expect.

    It seems that Stalin and Hitler were not the only ones to rewrite history to suit themselves.

    Cavan Hogue was formerly Australian Ambassador to USSR and Russia.

  • Gavan Hogue. Quo Vadis Thailand?

    Thaksin undoubtedly engaged in some corrupt activities. Whether he was more corrupt than the other mob is hard to say but he did get the numbers by actually doing something for the poor peasants especially in the depressed areas of the north and northeast. His critics accuse him of pork barreling but that is a well established democratic procedure. Whatever his motives, he did actually do something to improve the lives of the poor and they voted for him in droves.

    The Bangkok establishment takes the view that democracy is mob rule and the unwashed masses really need their betters to look after them. No doubt theBangkok elite is better educated and more sophisticated than the rural masses but essentially what they are arguing for is oligarchy. They believe that peasants with dung between their toes should not be allowed to decide who runs the country. So if you want to point the finger, the blame must surely be put squarely on the yellow shirts who refused to accept the election result. Their claim to represent the king is nonsense because the king is just as revered in the countryside by the red shirts.

    The army is a vehicle for the poor to get an education and rise in status so there would be many in the lower ranks who sympathise with the peasants. The top echelons tend to identify with the conservatives but there is at least some potential for differences of opinion within the army. It is probably too early to be sure what the army is going to do. Ideally, they should supervise free elections soon and support whoever wins. This could happen but may not. We just have to wait and see. To be fair, the armed forces did stay out of things for a long time while the civilian politicians and their supporters squabbled.

    The role of the King is unclear. The army says he has given them a mandate but we have only their word for that. It is obvious that the King is sick but it is not clear just how much he is able to exercise control over events as he has done in the past.

    In short, we should not jump to firm conclusions just yet. Coups are nothing new to Thais but there does seem to be more public opposition to this one than in the past. There is the potential for major clashes between the army and demonstrators which could lead to deaths but full scale civil war is unlikely. Compromise is much more in the Thai character.

    There is not much Australia can do except keep our options open and watch developments. Public denunciations and sanctions are not helpful. If we have anything to say it should be done privately. The Government has so far been careful to avoid public comment and this is wise.

    Gavan Hogue is a former Australian Ambassador to Thailand.

  • Cavan Hogue. Russia and the West.

    The USA and NATO seem to see their relationship with Russia as one of goodies and baddies. This is naïve and their hairy chested approach is not helpful. This paper looks at the realities of Russian attitudes to the outside world.

    Many foreigners write off Vladimir Putin as a “fascist”, a communist throwback, a brutal dictator and so on. There can be no doubt that he is strongly authoritarian and doesn’t suffer opponents gladly but he is not Stalin. He was elected and there are opposition parties. Many Russians dislike him and oppose what he stands for but his appeal to Russian nationalism does not fall on deaf ears. Russians are a proud people who are glad to be rid of many aspects of Communism but feel some nostalgia for the glory days of the USSR which was strong and respected as a great power.  They believe that Russia will always be a “Great Power” and are suspicious of Western attempts to play down Russia’s importance in the world. These attitudes go back way before theSoviet Union and reflect the longstanding Slavophile/Westerniser debate.

    While there were obvious differences in ideology and rhetoric there were also many similarities between theUSSR and the Russian Empire, especially in their policy towards the neighbours. The Soviets kept the conquests of the Tsars and added some. This does affect the attitudes of many today. Putin is above all a nationalist who wants to restore Russian greatness and is willing to stomp on anyone who gets in the way. However, he is neither mad nor stupid and understands the difference between a kind of Russian Monroe Doctrine and conquest.

    Any action by NATO needs to take account of how Russia views things even if it is only following the time tested principle of know your enemy. Russians see the West as hypocritical and are suspicious of what they see as a US desire to dominate the world – and more importantly Russia. The US has a long track record of interference and aggression against other countries – Mexico 1847, the Philippine Republic 1898, Nicaragua, Guatemala, Chile, Grenada, Vietnam, Iraq and so on. The Russians also have no illusions about the peaceful record of European nations. Therefore, Western rhetoric about freedom and non-interference is not seen as the righteous wrath of the just but as the hypocrisy of aggressors. Russians would ask that if it was wrong for theUSSR to have missiles in Cuba is it not equally wrong for NATO to have missiles and troops on Russian borders? We may debate the rights and wrongs of these arguments but it is how Putin and most Russians see things. Even the pro-democracy anti=Putin people are not immune from this view.

    Putin knows that the US is not going to use military force against Russia and the Europeans are even less inclined to do so. Sanctions will only have the effect of reinforcing anti-Western views and perhaps persuading people who don’t really like Putin to back him against the foreigners. If they were to bite economically that would resentment would be even greater. They may also encourage counter-sanctions.

    So what next?  Crimea is a special case. It is historically Russian, has a Russian majority and should never have become part of Ukraine. It will be absorbed into theRussian Federation but it does not follow that Russia is bent on a conquest of Ukraine or even less on the rest of the former Soviet Union. Admittedly, the Eastern Russian speaking part of Ukraine is a problem as are some other Russian enclaves from the former Soviet Union. Putin has said he will protect the interests of Russian minorities but also that he has no claims on other territory. His actions in the case of Georgia and theCaucasus are not encouraging but fear of the West did not stop him.

    If the West is seriously interested in a solution, more carrot and less stick would seem to be the answer. Most Ukrainians do not want to be part of Russia – and other neighbours even less so – but Ukraine is a corrupt and inefficient basket case which must give the Europeans pause for thought about how far they go in absorbing Ukraine as opposed to simply talking about its right to freedom of choice. NATO needs to be more sensitive to Russian feelings of encirclement by an organisation which was set up to contain theSoviet Union. They ask that if the Cold War is over, what is the role of NATO? This does not mean accepting Russian bluster or aggression but attempts to force Russia to kow tow publicly to the West are doomed. Quiet diplomacy has a much better chance of getting results.

    Threats by Australia to ban Russia from the G20 meeting in Brisbane miss the point. This is not Australia’s decision to take but the G20 organisation’s. Australia is not a player in this game and if the Russians notice us at all they will see us as simply following the big kids of the anglosphere as we always do. Nobody is lying awake in the Kremlin worrying about what Australia will do. We would be well advised to keep a low profile.

    Cavan Hogue was Australia’s last Ambassador to the USSR and the first to the Russian Federation and to Ukraine.

     

     

  • Cavan Hogue. Russia, Ukraine and Crimea.

    Western rhetoric about the situation in Ukraine shows little understanding of the realities of Russia and Ukraine. If Western countries want a new cold war they are going the right way about it. It is a complex problem which cannot be solved by superficial noises about democracy and territorial integrity. Crimea is a special case which should be separated from the more general conflict.

    Crimea was always Russian until Khrushchev put it into the Ukrainian SSR which didn’t matter because everything at that time was controlled from Moscow anyway. However, after the break-up, a whole lot of people who spoke Russian and thought of themselves as Russians found themselves in a country they didn’t want to be part of and felt no loyalty towards. That is why they are an autonomous region and that is why they want to be part of Russia instead of Ukraine.

    Many Russians do not see Ukrainians as being different. The beginnings of what we now know as Russia were in Kiev when Prince Vladimir adopted Orthodox Christianity. Kievan Rus, as it was known, then spread north to Moscow and is seen by Russians as the origin of their civilisation. Those who think of themselves as Ukrainian would not deny history but presumably would argue that things have changed in the last 500 years and they prefer to look towards Europe.

    Ukraine is divided between Russians and Ukrainians. The non-Russian Ukrainians have an understandable distrust of Russia. In places like Lvov people who have never moved from the one house have been Polish, Soviet Russians and now Ukrainian. There is also a religious divide between Russian Orthodox and Uniates who have their own rites but accept the authority of the Pope. The current split within Ukraine is between those who look to Russia and those who look to Europe.

    If a free and fair referendum is held in Crimea there is likely to be a majority for joining Russia. Forcing these people back into Ukraine is not going to solve anything. They will remain a discontented group who will continue to make trouble for the central government. They believe they have the right to self-determination and Ukraine might be a stronger and more stable country without them.

    Russians are a proud people who have been humiliated by their lessened influence in the world but who still firmly believe Russia is a Great Power. Putin has this view in spades and attempts by the West, especially the USA, to pressure him will be resisted. It is certainly true that he is authoritarian – to put it mildly – but this should not lead us to ignore the fact that in the case of Crimea he does have a point. Quite apart from Crimea, Putin does have a vision of a Russia which plays a major role in the world and is not pushed around. He does not seem to accept that Ukrainians don’t like to be pushed around either.

    Sanctions are dangerous in that they will tend to create a gap instead of bringing Russia into closer ties with Europe. Even if they were to succeed, they would leave a resentment that will not go away in a hurry. Megaphone diplomacy is not helpful.

    The pious comments from the Coalition of the Willing about not interfering in other countries are a bit rich! While there is plenty of chest pounding from Putin, Russians will not be impressed by pressure from people they see as not being in a position to cast the first stone. Western countries may claim the moral high ground but Russians will not agree.

    Australia can have no significant influence in this dispute and we would be well advised to keep a low profile. However, I understand that domestic pressure from Ukrainians here who have more votes than Russians is a factor which politicians will take into account in their public rhetoric. I suspect the community here, many of whom left Ukraine while it was still part of the USSR, have unreal expectations of what Australia could and should do in Ukraine. Most of them belong to the Ukrainian speaking and anti Russian part of the country. They have a legitimate point of view but so perhaps do the people who do not want to be part of Ukraine.

    Cavan Hogue was the last Australian Ambassador to the USSR and the first to the Russian Federation and to Ukraine. He was also Ambassador to Mexico, Malaysia and Thailand.