AUSTRALIA is entering yet another period in which policymakers tout the virtues of adapting to Asia.

Last month, Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s government released a much-delayed White Paper which called for sweeping reforms in education, as well as a new round of structural adjustments designed to allow the country to reap the maximum benefits from being close to Asia’s fast-growing economies. 

Speaking during a visit to India last month, the Prime Minister foreshadowed the general thrust of the report with these remarks: “The global economic and strategic weight is shifting eastwards towards our region, driven by the rapid modernisation of Asian nations, by economic dynamism and by population growth.”

“Asia,” she continued, “is becoming the world’s largest consumer market. For Australia, we are in the right part of the world at the right time.”

Fine words, but hardly original. Australian leaders have made similar declarations before, only to see their initiatives sidelined by their successors. Indeed, it is not difficult to make the case that past official efforts to re-orientate popular thinking towards Asia have all failed.

In a submission to the federal government last year, the Asia Education Foundation, comprising senior educationalists and government officials, noted that “many successful (education) programmes have been limited in impact by being small-scale and marginal”, while “promising programmes have lacked continuity and sustainability”.

Australian foreign policy has long suffered a similar fate.

In the early 1990s, Mr Paul Keating focused on developing close links with the Asia-Pacific. His first overseas trip as prime minister was to Indonesia rather than the United States.

He was also known for the emphasis his government placed on developing the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum as a means of promoting trade and thereby enhancing Australia’s economic stability.

Mr John Howard’s tenure as prime minister (1996-2007), however, saw a re-emphasis on Australia’s traditional ties with Britain, Europe and the Commonwealth countries.

One reason for this, of course, was the confluence of various international and regional crises that forced the government to focus on security issues. These included violence by pro-Indonesia militias in the wake of the pro-independence vote in then East Timor in 1999, the deployment of Australian troops to the newly created Timor Leste and the terrorist attacks in New York and Washington in 2001.

This, together with the subsequent bombings in Bali, in which scores of Australian citizens were killed, further reinforced the negative view many Australians held of Asia.

During this period, the enrolment of Australian students in Asian language courses (notably Indonesian) in schools and universities plummeted. This had been painstakingly built up during the Keating years.

Under prime minister Kevin Rudd, who held office from December 2007 to June 2010, Australia’s outlook changed yet again. Observers who longed for a renewed emphasis on Asia saw hope in Mr Rudd’s ability to speak Mandarin, woo Beijing and facilitate the export of Australian coal and iron ore.

The prime minister also enthusiastically supported a re-emphasis on teaching Asian languages in schools. But his interest in global rather than purely regional issues limited the official thrust.

Australia’s attempts to re-engage Asia were also limited by the perceived need to underline Canberra’s commitment to the US alliance by supporting the continued presence of Australian troops in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Unlike Mr Keating and Mr Rudd, Ms Gillard has no particular interest in foreign policy. But many of the lofty goals in the policy paper released late last month suggest a growing awareness of the need to address many of the critical issues raised by the fact that Asia is now the fastest-growing region in the world.

Australian students, says the White Paper, will have “priority” access throughout their schooling to the Chinese, Hindi, Indonesian and Japanese languages. The Prime Minister, who has a passion for education, also wants to link every school with an Asian partner for online classes by 2025.

Significantly, there is also a recognition that policymakers need to move beyond just implementing Asian-oriented courses in the schools. Indeed, the broad thrust of the White Paper is to seek educational and cultural awareness at all levels of society so that business, trade and cultural pursuits all benefit from a systemic increase in knowledge and understanding of Asia.

Whether the new policy direction will last is difficult to say. Some business leaders have already slammed as excessively doctrinaire a proposal requiring large companies to ensure that at least one-third of their board members have “deep experience” in Asia.

Indeed, such quotas may not be a good idea. What is really needed is a national consensus that focusing on Asia really is the way to go. This is not something that can be forced. How Ms Gillard’s government implements the new policy will go a long way towards determining whether or not future governments maintain the necessary vision.

(C) Singapore Press Holdings Limited