After Pauline Hanson, Richard Marles makes more sense

Richard Marles’s warning that xenophobia is weakening Australia’s strategic relationships takes on new significance following Pauline Hanson’s call for a ‘monocultural’ Australia, writes Carl Gopalkrishnan.

SECRETARY OF DEFENCE Richard Marles spent most of it address to Defending the Australian Summit June 2 describes Australia’s expanding network of defense relationships across the Indo-Pacific.

Call to former prime minister Paul KeatingHis observation that Australia has found its security “Not from Asia, but from Asia”The Minister of Defense then made an interesting warning:

“The risk of phrasing the narrative this way is that it seems almost inevitable. But of course nothing could be further from the truth.”

Marles went on to claim: “Indo-Pacific countries are watching carefully what we do here.” and I warned them “Those who try to walk the path of xenophobia” not only undermines Australia’s social cohesion, but also “It basically means we are less safe.”.

Some critics would later regard these statements as identity politics. But by the end of a speech celebrating decades of cooperation and defense partnerships, they sounded more like a warning than a detour. Marles suggested that relationships, trust, and reputation are also skills.

Days later Senator Pauline Hanson used the National Press Club to make a call. “monocultural” Australia. Looking back, the series reads quite differently. Perhaps Marles wasn’t just defining a new form of talent. He was almost playing a war game throughout the conversation. He was reminding those within the defense, and the country more broadly, that the relationships he had been celebrating for 20 minutes should never be mistaken for something automatic.

But still, Marles’ words hit a wall of silence that really needed some pushing.

After working with multicultural communities on social cohesion, emergency response, and recovery over the past decade, I have learned that long memories can be both a blessing and a curse. Societies shaped by war, migration and difficulties become resilient. We lower the bar on anxiety and threat because memory has taught us to survive. We tell ourselves not to overreact, until one day we discover that tolerance is not the same as consent.

Long memories shaped by war, occupation and instability across much of the Indo-Pacific are encouraging people to think carefully about what is worth saying publicly and what would be better managed quietly. Relationships continue, but silence should not be confused with consent.

Australia may face the opposite problem. Decades of alliance memories and strategic reassurance can create an institutional comfort in which Asian silence is often interpreted as consent.

Marles implied that this was contrary to the trust and confidence that Australia has built with countries in our region. Trust requires the ability to see the world through others’ eyes, and sometimes “It requires us to challenge the reflexes that have been ingrained in our own institutions for decades so that we can offer trust and receive trust in return, and it requires us to respect.”.

Marles’s warning that nothing is inevitable about Australia’s position in the region deserves a second reading. What may seem reassuring to Australians may look very different to neighbors who have learned over generations that relationships require constant maintenance.

AUKUS He should have reminded Australians of this distinction. Much of Asia didn’t see the deal coming. There were criticisms, analysis and private discussions rarely reported in Australia. Relationships continue, but this continuity should never be confused with consent to xenophobic White nationalism. Throughout much of the region, people have long memories.

Thirty years of cyclical debates about Pauline Hanson and Australian identity are treated in much the same way. Australia’s existing regional military and commercial partnerships are no guarantee of indifference to our domestic debates, which raises a more interesting question. Are Australians once again confusing silence with consent?

Marles’ warning about xenophobia was not directed at extremists. Speaking at the Defending Australia Summit, he argued that Australia should: “Challenge reflexes that have been ingrained in our own institutions for decades.” before after warning “People distinguish between immigrants and Australians”.

The irony is that a Defense Minister made this warning at the Defense of Australia Summit. Australianto an audience of defense industry and media experts. The people in that room were not outside Pauline Hanson’s monocultural Australia. They were in and seemed to have completely missed the point.

In defense language, talent simply means the ability to accomplish something. Most Australians think of ships, missiles and personnel. But alliances, trust and relationships are also skills. They take decades to build and minutes to damage.

Perhaps after Senator Hanson’s National Press Club speech, Marles’ own speech would be more meaningful. He wasn’t saying, “Be kind because multiculturalism is good.” It said: “Do not harm talents.”

The irony is that many critics have heard of identity politics because they assumed talent only meant hardware. They heard the warning but missed what he was trying to protect.

Marles’ remarks about xenophobia deserve to be taken seriously. But multiculturalism will also help Australia understand how AUKUS reaches the region.

Jack NetherlandsProfessor of Global Security Issues at the University of Leeds pointed out that historical “Anglobal color lines” within the AUKUS alliance are clearly visible, though rarely talked about, in Asia. Perhaps this also explains why Asia’s relative silence should not reassure Australians. Throughout much of the Indo-Pacific, long memories cause people to carefully weigh what is worth saying publicly and what is better managed privately.

Marles warned the summit that Indo-Pacific countries were keeping a watchful eye on Australia and that nothing about our place in this region should be taken as inevitable. Pauline Hanson’s speech did not invalidate this warning. Made it easier to understand. If he is right, it is unlikely that Pauline Hanson’s periodic rehabilitation by some sections of the media and political class will be interpreted as the ongoing maintenance that these relationships across the region require.

Carl Gopalkrishnan is an Australian artist and policy practitioner with many years of experience in multicultural policy, social cohesion and community engagement.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.