Asianisation - here we go again.

[boxy]

Can we choose our own path now, old man?

[mantra]

Mr Abbott thinks it's the obvious choice (even claims that the evil GALP stole it from him).

Whether we fit your definition of Asian, or not, seems irrelevant, to the actual subject. That being, do we gear ourselves towards appealing to the growing Asian marketplace.

Yes - but we can't compete with them on their level so now we will officially join them. Even the introduction of scholarships to study here for Chinese students/sale of Cubbie station is a sure sign that within a few decades we won't be a sovereign state. Our grandchildren will be working as coolies.

Welcome Mao Zedong.

[Rorschach]

We've chosen our own way for a very long time now boxy.

[Rorschach]

I remember when we were told Australia would never be part of Asia until we looked more Asian. I remember the veiled racism aimed at us not coming from us.

Australia's Asian-ness is barely visible
November 5, 2012
Tim Soutphommasane
Political philosopher and regular columnist

AND so we have officially entered the Asian Century. Really? Amid the commentary about the eponymous white paper, launched a little over a week ago, there has been consensus about one thing. Finally, it seems the Gillard government has found a compelling story to tell the nation. Compelling to whom?

In one sense, of course, the story has already been partly formed. The Asian Century has enjoyed regular mentions in the speeches of Julia Gillard and her ministers during the past year.

But the white paper takes things into a new phase. It is an ambitious statement of government policy about how Australia is to respond to the economic rise of Asia. It is a regurgitation of past Labor policies and aspirations.

Naturally, much debate has concerned the white paper's proposals on ''Asia literacy''. The paper's goal to ensure that all Australian schools teach at least one of four priority Asian languages - Mandarin, Hindi, Indonesian, Japanese - is certainly bold. And it brings into relief the real challenge of the Asian century. So the compromise is now not so much looking more Asian even though the Asian intake was increased by Keating, but now we have to sound more Asian.

In March on this page, I wrote about the mercantilist tenor of discussions about Asia. Engagement with the region can be regarded as simply about cashing in on an emerging Asian middle class measured in the billions.

Frequently forgotten is the task of engaging culturally with the region. This is one thing that the white paper has made more central. So now we are supposed to become culturally Asian? How is that going to work? Why can't we simply engage with Asia and remain Australian. I am certain they do not wish to become more Australian, after all we were described as the "White Trash" of Asia.

Our renewed conversations about Asia literacy will reveal much about how we really understand ourselves and the region. Unfortunately, there remain some blind spots. Some of us seem to believe that Asia is something out there, wholly apart from us. In fact, there is already a lot of Asia within Australia. You can read that as those Asians already migrated here.

Thus many of us overlook our existing Asia literacy. This is one of the inbuilt benefits of a multicultural Australia: we have a strong platform for extending our relations with the region. Benjamin Herscovitch of the Centre for Independent Studies argued in a recent paper that our cultural diversity means there are more than 2 million speakers of Asian languages in Australia, including some 650,000 speakers of Chinese.

Even so, I disagree with Herscovitch's suggestion that Asia literacy is a ''non-problem''. That is because so much of our Asian-ness, for want of a better term, is currently invisible. here we go...

With one or two notable exceptions, Penny Wong Asian-Australians aren't in the room when it matters. Where are they represented in our ministerial cabinets, our corporate boardrooms and our editorial offices? Will they be represented in such settings soon? Why don't those areas LOOK more Asian?

Engaging with the region should not be the exclusive responsibility of Asian-Australians, however. It's something to be done by all Australians. Yet they are faced with this ingrained racism.

Currently, fewer than 6 per cent of students in year 12 study an Asian language - hardly impressive. There are lots more interesting subjects than languages. Not everyone has an ear or liking for other languages. There are also other non-Asian languages that are more popular.

The challenge of literacy is not confined to just language, either. Any genuine literacy must extend to culture. here we go. If we are to be accepted as part of Asia, our citizens must be able to understand Asian cultural traditions and values.
Understanding doesn't mean becoming... or does it?

Again, our multicultural character is a strength. Most of our immigrants come from countries in Asia, and most of them settle in Melbourne and Sydney. Yet so far it has had very little positive outcome or economic use. Well we all know about Vietnamatta and the drug centre of Australia. That worked well.

Yet, though we like to celebrate our major cities as global capitals, we don't always embrace them as laboratories of cultural learning. Why should we... we are Australia. We don't always recognise that how we manage diversity in our cities is a good indication of how well equipped we are to prosper regionally. Really... take a look at how diversity is handled in Asia.

The Asian Century may just provide an opportunity to reinvigorate our nation-building brand of multiculturalism. I hope not... BTW you don't need Multiculti to learn another language. We have grown lazy in believing that diversity was just about the culinary innovation of modern Australia. Not at all, that is what the ignorant think. That is what they have been told in order to accept Multiculti. The enduring virtue of Australian multiculturalism is that it allows a national identity to evolve with time and adapt to change. This gets to the core of the challenge now presented to the nation. But I want to remain Australian, not become some hybrid version. I want my culture to evolve as it may, not become some hybridised Asian Nationality.

The white paper's publication marks only the beginning. Like I said, here we go again. There is the question of putting its prescriptions into action - something that will require significant funding in education and in other domains.

But there is an equally pressing matter of winning hearts and minds. Government policy on its own isn't enough. It's also up to individual citizens, businesses and communities to embrace integration with Asia. But surely to trade with Asia we do not have to INTEGRATE with it... geographically we are not even part of it

While those in Canberra and elite opinion-makers elsewhere may sign up to this, there remains the task of communicating the opportunities and challenges of an Asian Century to punters. Punters? How derogatory. In an appearance on Seven's Sunrise last Monday, Derryn Hinch unwittingly highlighted the depth of this problem when he said, ''I believe the average Australian voter probably thinks the Chinese Century is the name of a new suburban restaurant.''

This gets us to the real test for the white paper. Julia Gillard titled her speech at its launch two Sundays ago, ''History asks great nations great questions''. To her credit, she has posed some big questions. Are we up to answering them? I've given you my answer...

Tim Soutphommasane is an Age columnist, a political philosopher at Monash University and the author of Don't Go Back To Where You Came From. Twitter: @timsout

Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/politi ... z2BJFIdrt3" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[Rorschach]

The "white paper" beat up... is just that.
Whislt once more aspiring to goals dubious an otherwise it is nothing new in that Australia has always looked to and aided the Asian region. Pity Asia doesn't recognise this.... perhaps sending a copy of the "white paper" to them might act as a reminder.

White paper risks obscuring long history of engagement with Asia
November 6, 2012
Gerard Henderson
Executive director, The Sydney Institute

According to reports, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, will be spruiking her government's Australia in the Asian Century white paper at this week's Asian and European leaders meeting in Vientiane. If this gives the impression that Australia is focused on recent developments in Asia, well and good. However, if the promotion of the white paper implies that Australia has suddenly discovered Asia, its publication could be counterproductive.

Australia's interaction with Asia goes back at least eight decades. Indeed, some of these institutional connections are documented in chapter three of the white paper, which is titled ''Australia in Asia''. Here are some facts.

In 1934, when Joseph Lyons was prime minister, the conservative politician John Latham led an eastern mission to what was then called the Far East. The aim of Latham's delegation was to increase Australian contacts in, and trade with, Asian nations. Lyons broadly accepted Latham's recommendations. At the 1937 Imperial Conference in London, Lyons raised the possibility of the formation of a Pacific pact involving such nations as the US, France, the Netherlands, the Soviet Union, China and Japan. Discussion of the proposal was terminated due to the conflict between China and Japan.

Between 1939 and 1945, the focus of Australian foreign and defence policy centred on victory in the Second World War. At the conclusion of hostilities, Ben Chifley's Labor government gave strong diplomatic support to independence movements in Indonesia, Burma, India, Pakistan, the Philippines and Ceylon (now Sri Lanka).

Percy Spender, when external affairs minister in Robert Menzies' Coalition government, which was elected in December 1949, played a key role in the creation of the Colombo Plan aimed at helping the economies of south and south-east Asia. Part of Australia's contribution to the Colombo Plan provided for young Asians to be educated in Australian universities. Many went on to become leaders of their countries. Spender advocated that Australia should be a ''bridge'' between Asia and the West.

In July 1950, the Menzies government committed military forces to help the US-led United Nations force preserve South Korea against attack from communist North Korea, supported by China. As Gillard acknowledged when launching the white paper, the allied success in thwarting the communist advance made possible the establishment of a vibrant society in South Korea. In this conflict, Australians fought beside South Koreans along with forces from the Philippines and Thailand.

In 1955, Australia, along with Britain and New Zealand, committed forces to the Malayan Emergency to protect Malaya from a communist insurgency. This commitment, which was opposed by Labor, proved successful.

In 1965, Australia provided forces to support the newly formed nation of Malaysia against the confrontation initiated by the Sukarno regime in Indonesia. Once again, this was successful and confrontation ceased.

In July 1957, the Country Party leader and trade minister John (Jack) McEwen visited Japan to complete negotiations of a commerce agreement between the two nations. This was a remarkable event, especially in view of the fact that the Pacific War had only ceased about a decade previously and the appalling treatment of Allied prisoners of war by Japanese forces was widely known. The trade agreement proved of considerable benefit to both nations. However, it was opposed by Labor under the leadership of Bert Evatt.

Australia's Vietnam commitment in the late 1960s and early 1970s was controversial. Today there is little support for it among academics or journalists. Yet support can be found among the South Vietnamese descendants living in suburban Sydney and Melbourne. Australia's Asian allies in Vietnam included South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand.

In early 1966, Harold Holt, who replaced Menzies as prime minister, began the junking of the White Australia policy. Holt died in December 1967. During his brief term in office, Holt's priority was to increase Australia's focus on the nations of Asia.

Immediately after his election in December 1972, Gough Whitlam recognised China. This policy was embraced when Malcolm Fraser became prime minister three years later. Fraser commissioned Owen Harries to write the Australia and the Third World report, which was released in 1979.

Bob Hawke, after he became prime minister in March 1983, continued Australia's focus on Asia. He commissioned Ross Garnaut's Australia and the North-East Asian Ascendancy report. The Hawke and Keating governments played an important role in the development of the Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation forum. These initiatives were continued by the Howard government, which oversaw the successful UN-endorsed peacemaking operation in East Timor. Australia's focus on Asia continued under Kevin Rudd and, now, Gillard.

Talking up the white paper may have political benefits in Australia. But it would be helpful if world leaders assembled in Laos knew that Australia was deeply involved in the region decades before anyone had spoken of an ''Asian century''.

Gerard Henderson is the executive director of the Sydney Institute.

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/ ... z2BORGpmXy" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;