Are Australians averse to engaging with the world?

The newly elected President of the Philippines Rodrigo Duterte, before his decisive electoral victory in May this year, made an incredibly offensive joke about the gang rape of an Australian missionary. If past history is a guide then Australia may opt to minimize the relationship with this important regional player on the basis of the soon to be President's off-colour humour and his record on human rights issues as Mayor of the city of Davao

But, as distasteful as he may be to our sensibilities, the actions of the Philippines President within his own borders are entirely of concern for the people of the Philippines and should have no significant bearing on the foreign policy decisions of an Australian government. Foreign policy and state relations should be undertaken to serve national interests and to preserve the good order of relations between states through continuous engagement.

However, successive generations of Australians have demonstrated a certain immaturity when it comes to Australia's foreign relations that works to undermine both Australia's national interests and the development of human rights inside affected countries. Australian's are oversusceptible to emotion led responses to difficult problems of state relations that have a detrimental effect on the ability of our governments to engage with important countries.

Along with controversial national leaders, Australians have a tendency to get over involved in the internal security problems of other countries. This could be China with regard to Tibet, Sri Lanka and the Tamils, Indonesia and West Papua and Aceh, the 2011 Libyan uprising or Vladimir Putin's stifling of dissent. Many Australians and important figures in media, politics and academia are loath to see any Australian government doing business with or seen to be cooperating with governments they consider to be violators of human rights and international law.

Events in Libya in 2011 had an instantaneous effect on many policy and opinion makers. All of a sudden much of the national conversation revolved around the necessity for an intervention against a figure that most Western nations had worked hard to bring out of the cold. Without first considering the consequences of removing an authoritarian government that had ruled the country for 43 years, Australia championed Gaddafi's overthrow.

The readmission of the Gaddafi regime, after the Iraq War, to the international community brought numerous dividends such as the surrendering of Libya's WMD program, restitution for the Lockerbie killings, a substantial lessening of the regimes support for terrorist groups and greater control over illegal migration across the Mediterranean. These achievements were totally undercut by international enthusiasm (including in Australia) for the toppling of the Gaddafi regime and its replacement with sectarianism and civil war.

Human rights are next to impossible to consolidate or improve in conditions of continuous conflict. Those countries that are most free and democratic are wholly safe from internal violence and instability. Human rights are built upon political stability, political stability rests upon the ability of a state to have unchallenged authority over a given land and population, a state cannot maintain its power when internal and external actors seek to challenge state control and sovereignty.

The often expressed admonition that countries should forego military action against violent internal threats and seek a political solution must be becoming a tiresome event for those governments on the receiving end.

It is possible that many people in Australia start from a place where they regard states as essentially no more legitimate that non-state actors and popular movements. This encourages the belief that a state is no less obligated to negotiate with non-state belligerents as it would with another internationally recognised state.

But in the reality of statecraft governments are highly averse to treating an internal entity as being equal in legitimacy to themselves. This point is lost on many within Australia who routinely call on governments of the world to forego the use of force against opponents such as terror groups and independence movements and to engage in dialogue and negotiation.

The US backed government of Columbia adopted a shoot to kill policy towards the drug cartels in the early 1990s. Cartel violence claimed the lives of tens of thousands of Columbians and thoroughly destabilised the entire country. The brief period of warfare against the nation's drug criminals made Columbia far more stable and democratic in the long term. How democratic could the country remain if criminals can kill en masse with impunity and use their enormous wealth to corrupt the state?

Sri Lanka has long suffered the consequences of a terrible civil war which has impeded the progress of what could and should be a strong developing country. Rather than recognising that for all its horrors the victory of the Sri Lankan Armed Forces over the Tamil Tigers offers the best possible chance for that countries future, many have called upon the Australian government to breakoff cooperation with Sri Lanka.

Tony Abbott wisely opted to pursue a stronger security relationship with his Sri Lankan counterpart to lessen the humanitarian impact of the conflict and to strengthen the internal security of Sri Lanka. But there remains a strong chorus of opinion hostile to Sri Lanka and too great a willingness to sympathise with the representatives of the violent Tamil rebellion.

Figures such as David Cameron and Stephen Harper responded to domestic pressures to sideline the Sri Lankan government during the 2013 Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Colombo.

It is interesting that many prominent figures (many of whom on the left) used to argue that human rights were not improved in Vietnam, Cambodia and Cuba through isolation of their governments and economies. The human rights argument has since been inversed to achieving success through total isolation and condemnation.

In 1975 Whitlam acted in Australia's national interest by prioritising the relationship with Indonesia over that of the East Timor independence movement FRETILIN. Whitlam believed that by recognising the annexation of East Timor into Indonesia this would prevent instability in Southeast Asia and preclude a possible Australian armed intervention against Indonesian forces.

The relationship with Indonesia which Paul Keating and John Howard did so much to cherish is often thrown off track by popular reaction to internal issues within Indonesia. Paul Keating had to tackle a negative public attitude during his attempts to build a constructive relationship with Indonesia that led to the APEC leaders meeting, enhanced trade and a treaty of mutual security.

John Howard's decision in 2006 to sign a landmark uranium agreement with Vladimir Putin would be almost wholly impossible in today's media environment. But Australia's unwillingness to do business with the Russian Federation will be an opportunity unlikely to be missed by other savvier governments.

Kevin Rudd's first term saw relations with China, Japan, India and Sri Lanka suffer as a result of non-critical issues such as whaling, uranium exports and internal security issues that had no effect on Australian interests. Julia Gillard did a lot to repair these damages and Tony Abbott improved further the relationship with all.

In comparison more successful countries pursue foreign policy in their own national interest. Good examples include Japan, South Korea, China and Italy who share less concern with the internal issues of important partners. Such an approach allows for a diverse web of security and economic partnerships to be forged. With the exception of China, all the above countries have been able to maintain strong relations with their primary security partner, the United States, and yet at the same time fostered a wide variety of important relationships.

In Australia's case our anxieties about dealing with the wider world may be a symptom of an unwillingness to be ambitious in the field of foreign affairs. Paul Keating and Bob Hawke placed negotiations to achieve wider aims ahead of human rights concerns. But in the end the public did not appear to appreciate the benefits of the Keating approach in partnering with Suharto and consolidating the Australia-Indonesia relationship.

Japan, however, remains a good example of Australia putting the future ahead of past trauma and establishing an increasingly beneficial trading partnership to the benefit of Australia. But we should remember that the decision by Menzies to reopen relations with Japan was not greeted warmly by everyone in Australia and a persistent ant-Japanese attitude has lingered in Australia.

Two of Italy's prime ministers, Silvio Berlusconi and Matteo Renzi were quite successful when it came to foreign affairs. They maintained the important relationship with both the United States and the European Union countries, but they built up productive relations with Libya, Egypt, Russia, Kazakhstan, Turkey, Iran, Japan and Israel. A major difference being that the Italian population probably does not have that much concern about who its government deals with on the international stage as long as the benefits flow back to Italians and Italian businesses.

Other states have concentrated on greater regional integration and cooperation rather than on issues well outside of their sphere of interest. Germany in Europe, France in North Africa, Turkey in the Middle East and Brazil in Latin America. Australia could become a more effective midlevel power in the South Pacific, Southeast Asia and in the future possibly the Indian Ocean.

Tony Abbott on a number of fronts demonstrated the benefits of broad based engagement with Sri Lanka, India and Iran. On Indonesia he was naturally expected to make some kind of response in the wake of the executions of two Australian nationals. But it demonstrates the ever-present willingness to let the relationship with Indonesia fall victim to emotive issues. Australian's more than most have difficulty accepting that they are subject to laws they would consider harsh and unjust when they are in non-Western countries.

Australia is not the United States of America. We do not enjoy their enormous global influence much less the military and economic might which sustains American power and the security of much of the rest of the world. Our foreign policy ambitions should be commensurate with our power and in practice that means working with countries that are important to our security and prosperity. And above all else we should recognise that condemning states for cracking down on internal violence, however brutally they are doing so, is more often than not counter-productive to the cause of improving human rights and the living conditions for those affected.

We in Australia are very lucky to be living in a country un-blighted by civil war and violent organised crime. We might want to recognise that other nations of the world are not so fortunate and their governments rest on less secure foundations than our own. Many of our previous Prime Ministers acted in our best interests through engagement and we should not overestimate our ability to change things through grandstanding. Australia is not as influential as we might think.