Between cents and sensibility

WHEN Manning Clark sat down to write his six-volume history of Australia, he began with a startling sentence: "Civilisation did not begin in Australia until the last quarter of the 18th century." It must have seemed like a good idea at the time but, ever since, thoughtful Australians have been uneasy about it.

Clark ignored, of course, as he later acknowledged, the presence of human beings in Australia for thousands of years. Whether the earlier inhabitants of Australia were "civilised" is hotly debated. Clark said he was making a distinction between civilisation and culture, meaning social cohesion to provide the basics of life.

Even so, "civilisation" is a contentious concept, associated with military power, political dominance, high culture, material progress and values that must be defended at any cost, as another professor, Samuel P. Huntington, discovered with his controversial thesis The Clash of Civilisations and the Remaking of World Order.

According to Huntington, Australia is a "torn country" (as he also describes Russia, Turkey and Mexico) because it is mistakenly trying to define itself by economics as part of Asia, instead of by culture as part of the West. Most Australians were surprised by this description. They accepted that historically and culturally they were Western, but acknowledged the need to be active in their region without supposing that in doing so they were becoming "Asian".

Huntington argued that to escape from the destiny of being torn forever, a "civilisational shift" must occur. The political and economic elite of the country must support the shift, the public must at least be willing to accept it and the host the Asians in this case must embrace the convert. None of these conditions exists without qualification in Australia's case, but a shift has occurred that appeals to a pragmatic people. Engagement with the region is necessary, not to change Australia's identity but to improve the nation's economic prospects and security.

These reflections bear on current "cultural" problems with China and India. India and Australia have some things in common, including a federal democracy, a vociferous media and cricket, but we are vastly different. India is an ancient society, steeped in religion and mystery, sensitive to social status and skin colour. The ignominy of being a colony rankled, while some Indians sought to identify with British style. The culture of complaint is rampant. Indians are individuals, even if in great numbers.

In that sense, Australia cannot expect to satisfy the dissatisfaction of Indian students in Australia, which is not amenable to public policy. The tumult, however, has had the useful effect of exposing the quality of some private colleges and educational entrepreneurs, which can and should be dealt with.

China was never colonised and still sees itself as the centre of the world. It survived the Cold War intact, absorbing, unlike the Russians, only one, not both, of the Western thrust of capitalism and democracy. Individualism in China flourishes, as you would expect from a sage and gifted people, but publicly it is as discreet as a bamboo shoot. Chinese students in Australia have knuckled down, playing the immigration game like everyone else, while avoiding publicity. The problem for Australia is not managing them, but making an impression on their government.

The case of Stern Hu, the detained Australian Rio Tinto executive, exposed a weakness. Malcolm Turnbull's suggestion that the Prime Minister should pick up the phone and demand action was, to say the least, impulsive. Australia has a difficulty at the moment presenting itself as a nation, other than in sombre welcome to body bags returning from abroad.

On the other hand, exiled Uighur leader Rebiya Kadeer's visit exposed a weakness on China's side. Trying to stop a film about her and to prevent her address to the National Press Club was one of those somnolent bureaucratic exercises that only draw attention to their targets. Kadeer, like the Dalai Lama, may be a separatist, although even that is not clear, but she is not a terrorist.

Human rights is a two-way street. Australia has its own shortcomings, such as the appalling conditions of Aborigines and politico-legal lapses such as Dr Haneef's detention and the Australian Wheat Board scandal. The brash and hectoring tone we are tempted to adopt in noting the failures of others needs to be checked.

In Australia, the term "civilisation" has had a particular currency. We have tended to identify with the coloniser rather than with others who, like us, were colonised. We have been comfortable in associating our outlook with the culture of those who are powerful.

The centenary of federation, when the Australian colonies united to become one nation in 1901, became not a celebration of independence in Australia but a British gesture in London. A delegation of Australian prime ministers and state premiers, with a troop of soldiers to help guard Buckingham Palace, was sent to London to pay Australia's retrospective respect, while many Australians and many of our neighbours, no doubt had expected the occasion would be celebrated in Australia.

In 1988 we celebrated what we called our bicentennial, following the American bicentennial of 1976, which we copied. The substance was totally different, indeed the opposite. The Americans were celebrating their independence from the British, while we were marking the founding by Britain of its first Australian colony. By luck, we have been on the right side. Throughout the 20th century, we were on the winning team, if two hot world wars and a cold war can be reduced to sporting metaphor. Now the two powerful influences in our region, China and India, are culturally different from us, not to forget Japan, nor Indonesia. As a nation, we are still a work in progress, on a steep learning curve.

Yet the lesson of our recent history is that we do not have to be determinists, economic, geographic or cultural. The Asia-Pacific is a fusion of almost every known form of organised humanity. We can take heart from another definition of civilised behaviour, as opposed to savagery: modesty, patience and the capacity to understand others.

Writer and diplomat Bruce Grant was Australian high commissioner in India and foundation chairman of the Australia-Indonesia Institute.