By Leonid A. Petrov
In March 2008, before leaving for a 17-day trip to the United States, Europe and China, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd declared his foreign policy philosophy.
``The truth is that Australia's voice has been too quiet for too long across the various councils of the world,'' he told the Australian National University's East Asia Forum.
``That is why during the course of the next three years, the world will see an increasingly activist Australian international policy in areas where we believe we may be able to make a positive difference,'' he said.
Rudd assured the audience that the new Australian government is committed to the principle of ``creative middle-power diplomacy'' as the best means of enhancing Australia's national interests.
The 12 years of Howard government rule (1995-2007) were characterized by one-sided conservative foreign policy. Australian Liberals readily accepted from American neo-conservatives a doctrine of global military pre-emption and armed democratic enlargement.
The Australian Labor Party, victorious at the federal elections in November 2007, now proudly states that its foreign policy platform is based on the three pillars ― an alliance with the United States, active membership of the United Nations, and comprehensive engagement with Asia ― that manifest realism, liberal internationalism, and regionalism.
Given this new approach, will Australia consider a more active approach in helping troubled nations in the Asia-Pacific region?
Soaring prices for food staples, especially for rice, which have tripled over the past year, create concerns about the stability in one of the poorest nations in Northeast Asia.
The reports coming out of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK or North Korea) suggest that this country is facing a new famine.
The worst food shortage in years is coming at a time when North Korea's worsening relations with South Korea reduce the chances of the North acquiring aid.
The fall in grain production around the world and rising international grain prices have also put international food donors into a difficult situation.
Last month the World Food Program warned that North Korea would need massive food aid in the coming months to avert widespread hunger caused by severe floods, economic sanctions and ineffective diplomacy.
At the moment, Australia has minimal relations with North Korea. While maintaining formal diplomatic links it has little plans to open its embassy in Pyongyang. Since North Korea conducted a nuclear test in October 2006, Australian entry visas have not been issued for North Korea citizens and North Korean ships have been banned from Australian ports.
Most bilateral cooperation with the country has been put on hold by the Australian side ``until the nuclear-weapon crisis is resolved.'' The closure of the North Korean embassy in Canberra in January this year seems to be a logical continuation of this freeze in relations.
There is no discussion on the future of Australia-North Korean relations in the media. Reports and brochures on collaboration with North Korea produced by the Australian government reflect a pessimistic posture.
Issues related to the prospects of bilateral economic and cultural cooperation are outshone by the saga of North Korean nuclear programs, chilling stories of human rights violations, and alleged criminal activities in which the North Korean government is routinely implicated.
An overwhelming majority of Australians (86 percent) have negative views of North Korea's influence in the world. Media publications and video reports, particularly those made in the style of gonzo journalism, only add to the existing negativity and bias.
Certainly, North Korea is not an ordinary state and its social order is unique in today's world. To deal with North Korea successfully we must remember and understand the Cold War history and its consequences for the region.
The reality of the inter-Korean conflict must be taken into account whenever we try to engage North Korea in dialogue or cooperation. Sensibility and understanding in dealing with Korea and Koreans are as important as the first-hand knowledge of their country, language and culture.
Sadly, the former government's preoccupation with pragmatism and striving for globalization gave no chance for Australia-North Korean relations to develop into anything more significant ― North Korea was dismissed as a basket case.
The North Korean economy is currently experiencing a stage where the mechanisms of the centrally planned system are not working properly any more but the market-oriented system has not yet been built.
To some degree, the North Korean leadership is trying to emulate the South Korean model of export-based development, where a strong, dictatorial government aims for the increase of industrial productivity at any cost.
But the main obstacle for this scenario is the lingering taboo on the capitalist form of proprietorship in the North. Politically, the country remains closed and extremely sensitive to foreign and domestic criticism.
This is not a democratic way of development but it guarantees stability and precludes any possibility of labor unrest in the period of high growth.
North Korea is an industrialized (43 percent) nation, with moderately developed (33 percent) services sector and a small (23 percent) agricultural sector, which was badly affected by human mistakes, natural disasters compounded by the energy crisis and foreign trade sanctions.
In July 2002 a series of measures to liberalize the national economy were undertaken but no steps were made toward privatization of the means of production or real estate.
Although all businesses and enterprises in North Korea are still treated as government-owned and collectively-run, these days they receive unprecedented freedom in managing production and sales.
Leonid Petrov is a research associate at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, Australian National University in Canberra. He can be reached at leonid.petrov@anu.edu.au.