Australia’s humanitarian response to disasters in the South Pacific
| Author | Derek McDougall |
| Published date | 01 September 2021 |
| Date | 01 September 2021 |
| DOI | http://doi.org/10.1177/20578911211019249 |
| Subject Matter | Special issue articles |
Australia’s humanitarian
response to disasters in the
South Pacific
Derek McDougall
University of Melbourne, Australia
Abstract
Australian involvement in humanitarian affairs in the South Pacific is indicative of tensions that can
arise between ‘humanitarianism as diplomacy’ and ‘humanitarian diplomacy’. Australia aims to play
a leading role in relation to the Pacific island countries (PICs), and its humanitarian involvement can
assist in that respect. However, despite Australia’s attempts to prevent or mitigate climate-related
disasters, tensions have arisen because of Australia’s cautious climate change policies. The main
influences on Australia’s involvement in humanitarian affairs in the South Pacific are political and
bureaucratic factors within those parts of the Australian government concerned with relations
with the PICs, and humanitarian affairs in particular; Australian interactions with the PICs them-
selves and other relevant international actors also play a role. The ‘lessons learnt’ from Australia’s
humanitarian involvement in the South Pacific region focus on organizational effectiveness rather
than the tensions between ‘humanitarian diplomacy’ and ‘humanitarianism as diplomacy’.
Keywords
Australia, climate change, disasters, humanitarian affairs, humanitarian diplomacy, humanitarianism
as diplomacy, Pacific island countries, South Pacific
The aim of this article is to assess Australia’s humanitarian involvement in response to disasters
occurring in the South Pacific, focusing particularly on disasters occurring in the natural environ-
ment. In assessing the humanitarian involvement of any state in this respect, a broad distinction can
be made between ‘humanitarianism as diplomacy’ and ‘humanitarian diplomacy’ (O’Hagan,
2016). ‘Humanitarianism as diplomacy’ refers to the way in whi ch a state uses humanitarian
involvement to further its broader diplomatic objectives, such as enhancing its strategic position
or improving or protecting its economic situation. ‘Humanitarian diplomacy’ refers to the way in
which humanitarian operations are conducted in practice. In this article, the overarching argument
Corresponding author:
Derek McDougall, School of Social and Political Sciences, University of Melbourne, Victoria 3010, Australia.
Email: d.mcdougall@unimelb.edu.au
Asian Journal of Comparative Politics
ªThe Author(s) 2021
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
DOI: 10.1177/20578911211019249
journals.sagepub.com/home/acp
2021, Vol. 6(3) 202–220
Special issue article
is that Australia has a geopolitical motivation for taking a lead in humanitarian affairs in the South
Pacific (‘humanitarianism as diplomacy’); humanitarian sympathies are in play but the priority in
this respect is a region that is geopolitically important to Australia.
An important general point is that there is a range of disasters that might lead to humanitarian
involvement. In this article, the focus is on disasters occurring in the natural environment, partic-
ularly climate-related disasters such as cyclones; there can also be geophysical disasters such as
earthquakes and volcanoes. Since early 2020, we have seen a major pandemic with the global
spread of novel coronavirus (COVID-19). War and state failure or a collapse of public order can
also be viewed as ‘disasters’, sometimes leading to humanitarian involvement by external powers
(a South Pacific example is the Australian-led Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands
(RAMSI), 2003–2017).
Keeping in mind that we are assessing Australia’s humanitarian involvement in relation to
certain types of disasters (but not all), we can take the geopolitical context as background to that
involvement. Our emphasis, however, is on assessing the character of the humanitarian operations
in the South Pacific carried out under Australian auspices in response to disasters occurring in the
natural environment (‘humanitarian diplomacy’). Even though ‘humanitarian diplomacy’ and
‘humanitarianism as diplomacy’ can be complementary, there can also be tensions between the
two (O’Hagan, 2016: 664); the pursuit of geopolitical objectives (perceived ‘national interests’)
might complicate or even impede an involvement based on humanitarian objectives alone. Domes-
tic politics and bureaucratic factors within Australia are the main influences on Australia’s huma-
nitarian involvement in the region; this involvement is also shaped by the way in which Australia
interacts with the Pacific island countries (PICs) and other actors such as the United Nations (UN)
and significant powers in the region (such as New Zealand, France and the United States (US)).
Given the impact of global warming on disasters in the natural environment, conflict over climate
change policies in Australia has negative consequences for some aspects of Australia’s humani-
tarian involvement (the preventive aspect most obviously). On the whole, however, Australia’s
humanitarian assistance has the advantage of enhancing Australia’s position in the region. Orga-
nizationally, it is important to note the role assigned to relevant departments and agencies in the
conduct of humanitarian affairs, and political leadership in that setting; the involvement of non-
government organizations (NGOs) can also be important. More broadly, it is Australia’s political
leadership that determines the overall shape of Australia’s humanitarian contribution, taking into
account also the perceived need to maintain Australia’s leading role in the region. Beyond the
overall shape, the specific dynamics of any interaction between the Australian government and
the South Pacific island countries in relation to humanitarian affairs are determined by the way the
Australian government is organized to conduct that interaction, with influences coming also
from the NGOs involved, the island governments and civil society in the islands, as well as other
external actors (both governments and international organizations such as the United Nations).
While O’Hagan has contributed significantly in pointing out the distinction between the two
aspects of Australian involvement, drawing also on more general appraisals of humanitarianism
and disaster relief (for example, Barnett, 2011; Haroff-Tevel, 2005; Kelman, 2012; R´egnier, 2011),
her article gives less attention to the actual politics of that involvement. Bullard (2017) provides a
very detailed assessment of that aspect from an historical perspective, and there are also studies
that discuss the involvement of Australian defence forces (Newby, 2020; Ryan, 2013); Stevenson
and Envall (2019) have discussed humanitarian assistance in the context of Australian relations
with Japan. To understand the political dynamics of Australia’s humanitarian involvement, an
approach similar to that employed by Jack Corbett (2017) in relation to Australia’s development
203
McDougall
To continue reading
Request your trial