Political leaders, on all sides of politics, invoke “national interest” to justify any number of policies. The phrase is especially common in discussions about foreign affairs. As a rhetorical device, “national interest” serves a valuable function, carrying gravitas, leaving the impression of being a solid object, permanent and immutable.
By way of example, expect Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to deploy his regular formula when meeting with China’s Premier Li Qiang in Canberra on Monday: “co-operate with China where we can, disagree where we must and engage in our national interest.”
Yet the PM can’t reach for a textbook on his office shelf to look up the definition of Australia’s national interest. The slogan is ultimately empty, filled with whatever the government of the day decides it to mean.
Which made this brief exchange during a recent senate hearing particularly fascinating.
“It’s really only one question,” Victorian senator David Van asked Foreign Minister Penny Wong. “From a foreign affairs point of view, can you articulate what Australia’s national interests are?”
These words don’t make for a soundbite that will feature on the nightly news. But it’s an insight into how Labor is seeking to frame Australia’s approach to the world.
“Assuring our security, our prosperity and our economic security,” Wong responded. She quickly rattled off a range of broad interests including in the multilateral system, rules and norms, dealing with disputes, and the US alliance.
“I don’t know that you could do an exhaustive list,” Wong said, “but fundamentally it is about ensuring and assuring that Australia is safe, secure and prosperous in the world.”
But Van invited the Minister to be more expansive in the definition.
Wong: I’m happy to. How does it manifest in different areas? I think it manifests first in the UN system. Whilst it may not be perfect, we, as a middle power, want a world where disputes are resolved by engagement, negotiation and by reference to rules, norms and international tribunals where necessary.
We don't want a world in which disputes are resolved by power alone – by the use or threat of force. We have an interest in peace. Everything we do – whether it’s in our region, in our relationship with China, in our relationships with other powers – is about trying to assure peace and find ways in which conflict and competition can be dealt with in ways that don’t threaten peace. We have an interest in open, predictable trading arrangements. We have an interest in human rights and universal principles. We have an interest in the Pacific, in ensuring that members of the Pacific family provide security.
There are many areas where we would articulate in the narrow – in the specific – what Australia's interests are. But I think that the highest level is about: what is it that we have to do in order to best assure and safeguard Australia's security and prosperity? That’s what we should always be doing.
These words don’t make for a soundbite that will feature on the nightly news. But Wong’s definition bears thinking about, particularly in light of the recent exchange between Andrew Carr and Susannah Patton here on The Interpreter about the ambitions for the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. It’s an insight into how Labor is seeking to frame Australia’s approach to the world.
