Tony Abbott accrues diplomatic capital for crisis leadership

GLOBAL leaders are looking at Australia differently in the wake of flight MH17.

Abbott accrues diplomatic capital

AS every day the news from eastern Ukraine grows worse, Australia has found itself in the middle of one of the greatest geostrategic crises of our day.

Irony has come here to attend tragedy. For decades, our strategic debate has been transfixed by the rise of China. But it is Russia, the old enemy from the Cold War, which has drawn us intimately into first-order global power plays.

For the moment, as the nation still grieves its dead from Malaysia Airlines flight MH17, and while we still struggle for dignity and justice for the Australians we have lost, Tony Abbott has become an important, perhaps central, player in this geostrategic mess.

The depth of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s contempt for the international order is unfathomable.

This is a revolutionary moment. For the first time since the end of World War II, a big European power has used force to take the territory of a sovereign neighbour. It has done so in blatant violation of international law and binding treaties to which it is party, and in defiance of civilised opinion around the globe.

But even the Russian action has a context. Since the Cuban missile crisis more than 50 years ago, the world has enjoyed a period of fairly good stability among the great powers.

But now Russia is challenging the international order in Europe. Iran is doing similarly in the Persian Gulf. And, so far in a much less extreme fashion, Beijing is doing something similar in the East and South China Seas.

The Prime Minister and his government have been motivated primarily by concern for the Australians involved. But he and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop have been central in providing leadership in response to the Russian outrage.

Memorial: Tribute to MH17 victims

This will have significant geo-strategic consequences for Australia, but in truth it builds on the reputation and position as a significant international player that Abbott has quickly built. I have spent the past week and a half in Washington and New York and have had the opportunity to talk to dozens of policymakers, politicians, officials and opinion leaders and Abbott’s evolving and growing strategic role has been a surprising and recurring theme.

Of course, there are limits to this. Australia is a nation of 24 million people. But it is among about the 12 biggest economies in the world, it is very well regarded internationally and Abbott and Bishop have used every sinew of power, persuasion and, above all, moral and strategic clarity to play a big role in this unfolding drama.

Most notably, they pushed through the UN Security Council resolution from which all else has flowed. But this built on Abbott’s own relationships, made in oppos­ition and, much more importantly, in office.

A senior White House official, not speaking directly to the Ukraine situation, told me: “We have fantastic partners in Tony Abbott and Julie Bishop.”

Rather, he was referring to the new force posture agreement between Abbott and US President Barack Obama, which allows for greater military co-operation between the two nations.

But from conversations all over Asia and in the US, it is clear to me that Abbott, especially in his first few substantial meetings with important leaders, always seeks to convey a tailored strategic message, which furthers Australia’s strategic interests but also offers his interlocutor something.

The White House official says: “The Prime Minister said something the President appreciated. He said: ‘We (Australia) are an ally, that’s meaningful, we want to help. You (America) carry a lot of burdens, sometimes you carry too much. Where we can, we’ll help.’ ”

This is perfectly designed to enhance US commitment to Australia and it gives Abbott the sort of credit that he can draw on, and re-invest, with Washington.

This is a view across both sides of American politics and at the highest levels of the US’s strategic agencies.

Republican senator John McCain told me in an interview that he greatly admired Abbott, Bishop and the Australian government, especially this response.

McCain said: “I think he is assuming a level of leadership that is unfortunately lacking among so me of our European friends.”

The professionalism and diplomatic energy Bishop displayed at the UN was evident to everybody in Washington.

Former deputy secretary of state Richard Armitage told me: “Julie Bishop did a helluva job in New York. It’s Australia that’s responsible for that meaty resolution that we got out of the UN.”

Obama’s top diplomat for Asia, the Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, Danny Russel, told me: “From Prime Minister Abbott to Foreign Minister Julie Bishop down, the Australian government has reacted quickly and effectively to this tragedy.”

One question is whether this has any long-term consequence for Australia.

The answer is yes, and across several different levels.

Of course, Australia is not going to get into a knock-down, drag-out fight with Russia. But Abbott has special standing for three specific reasons — the deaths of the Australians on this plane, the clarity and force of his response, and his chairmanship of the Group of 20 major economies, the leaders of which will meet in Brisbane later this year.

The collapse of the Ukrainian government demonstrates the extreme vulnerability of Ukraine to Russian pressure, and the terrible success Putin has had in destabilising his ravaged neighbour.

It calls into even greater question Kiev’s ability to withstand Moscow’s relentless pressure and aggression, and raises again the question of whether the West has given sufficient assistance to Ukraine.

The events of the past few days suggest Putin is determined to push on with his strategy in eastern Ukraine.

US intelligence sees Russia sending more heavy weapons and equipment across the border.

The Ukrainian government accuses Russia of firing on its forces from within Russia itself. The eastern Ukrainian separatists continue to use Russian equipment to down Ukrainian military aircraft. These are the actions of a regional hegemon who does not plan to back down.

Putin feels he has the West’s measure. He wants to reclaim a portion of east European territory for direct rule by Moscow. Having annexed Crimea, there is every chance he will annex a large part of eastern Ukraine.

This could play out in several different ways. Most likely, there will be no effective European response. Nor does it seem that the Americans will arm-twist the Euro­peans into greater vigour.

However, it could also be that the US will jawbone the Euro­peans into greater sanctions. Putin is extremely powerful domestically. Not unlike the Chinese leadership, he has promoted a paranoid nationalism to keep anger at foreigners high.

He has bought off the oligarchs and has their support. The rich in Moscow feel very rich.

But economically he is more vulnerable than he seems. In the first six months of this year, roughly $US75 billion, or 4 per cent of Russia’s gross domestic product, fled abroad. The resources boom that made Russia temporarily rich is in decline. There is hardly any serious economic growth in the Russian system.

There is a real chance that the Americans and Europeans between them will move to sanctions, which may not be devastating but are significant.

Until now, the idea was to integrate Russia into the global economy, so that it prospered, it had a lot to lose and it was clear that the West was not trying to hold it back.

That equation all goes into reverse because of Russia’s behaviour in Ukraine.

Whatever sanctions the West finally decides on, Abbott has a significant voice in the emerging debate, much of it in private, among national leaders he has dealt with extensively over this issue already.

There is another broader consequence as well. Abbott builds up diplomatic money in the bank through this crisis. The international system comes to understand that the Australian government can get complex, difficult tasks done. It becomes very familiar with dealing with the Abbott government. This is diplomatic capital that will be important to Australia long-term.

But the whole episode has other geostrategic consequences for Australia as well, especially within our own region.

Mike Green is the former senior Asia director at the US National Security Council. He is one of the most important US voices on Asia policy and perhaps the key non-government interlocutor with the Japanese.

He believes both Abbott and Japan’s Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe, have helped the Obama admin­istration in crucial geo-strategic ways, and in ways Obama appreciates.

Green told me: “On Ukraine, the Obama administration knows that Putin has crossed a red line. He has violated the sovereign territory of a neighbouring country and he has violated the treaty designed to protect that territory.

“So the Obama administration is trying to muster an effective response using non-military means. The MH17 downing has put Abbott in a place where he can lead and articulate this response, as Australia did in the United Nations Security Council, which provided a basis for international co-operation.

“At the G7, Obama struggled to get a consensus and Abe helped him there. So Abbott and Abe have both helped the Obama administration manage the Western democracies, in a way that the Obama administration hasn’t been able to do on its own.

“Obama may have an uneasy relationship with these leaders for ideological reasons but is quite grateful to them.”

In counter-terrorism, there is no more intimate co-operation than that between Washington and Canberra.

So in two of the giant geostrat­egic challenges that Obama faces, China and Russia; in counter-terrorism; and even to some extent in the Middle East, the Abbott government is a significant asset to the US.

The US is not in decline in any absolute sense. But other powers are certainly gaining some relative advantage, or at least feel that they have a freedom of movement.

McCain told me he did not think the problem was any lack of US power, but rather a lack of US will and reliability.

But he also rightly attributed this partly to the economic difficulties the US has had, though its recovery is starting to look healthier.

There is also the undeniable sense that, after more than a decade’s involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq, Americans are tired of foreign entanglements.

The always present isolationist wing of the Republican Party, though still a minority, is becoming more boisterous. None of this will amount to much if the Republicans choose a strong presidential candidate in 2016.

On the Democrat side, the div­isions will also likely be fairly easily managed if Hillary Clinton is the presidential nominee. But if anyone else is the Democrats’ nominee, their internal differences on international issues could be very bitter.

All of this is a crucial context for Abbott’s clear-headed strategic activism. The US is not in decline but its allies need to share more of the security burden, and provide more of the geopolitical leadership, than was necessary when the US was at the zenith of its global power.

This is exactly what Abbott is doing.

The other consequences of his international leadership may be domestic. It shows him to the Australian people in a more authentic light.

It has also affected the internal dynamics of the government. The four ministers who have worked most closely on the MH17 issue are Abbott, Bishop, Attorney-General George Brandis and Defence Minister David Johnston.

This experience will bond these ministers together.

I spoke to Bishop this week in the midst of her extraordinary travels and efforts on this issue. It is hard to imagine any foreign minister putting in a more sustained and effective effort, in absolute lock step with the Prime Minister.

She remarked: “Knowing he’s got my back means there’s a lot I can achieve in UN negotiations.”

This is one of the basic lessons of effective foreign policy.

A prime minister and foreign minister must speak as one internationally, so that all their interlocutors know that their word counts.

This MH17 issue has a long way to run. Abbott has been a daily presence in the US media, as he was during the search for the missing Malaysia Airlines plane in the Indian Ocean.

Beyond its inherent tragedy, the MH17 issue is a fulcrum of global politics at the moment.

Abbott has played quite a difficult hand well.

In this dangerous and complex world, there will be many such challenges ahead.

The political alliances and personal trust being built up now can only be of use then.