Is it mere symbolism for the Wahid visit that John Howard has had an apparent change of heart on Asia, asks Gerard Henderson?

Alexander Downer is correct in referring to the "symbolism" of Abdurrahman Wahid's visit to Australia because in diplomacy, as elsewhere, rituals can convey significant messages. Hence Downer's comment on ABC Radio yesterday that "the symbolism of the President of Indonesia coming here after a quarter of a century, and the rehabilitation of the bilateral relationship which that symbolises, is extremely important". It's true that President Wahid is facing considerable political difficulties, and his immediate political future is not clear. But, right now, Gus Dur – as he is popularly known – is the elected President of Australia's largest neighbour and the first Indonesian leader to visit Australia since President Soeharto met with Gough Whitlam in Townsville in 1975. That's both significant and symbolic. John Howard has indicated that the Indonesian President will receive an official welcome similar to that extended to President Bill Clinton during his 1996 visit.

In his AM interview yesterday, Downer sought to distance the Coalition from the policy towards Indonesia during the prime ministerships of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating. The Foreign Minister commented that Australia has "a very different relationship with Indonesia from the relationship Mr Keating wanted to have".

It was not always so. On September 16, 1996, John addressed a banquet in Jakarta given by then President Soeharto. He reminded his audience that "it was a Liberal/Country Party government which welcomed the stability brought by [President Soeharto's] New Order government in the second half of the 1960s". Moreover, the Howard Government's foreign and trade policy white paper "In The National Interest" (1997) praised the "historic Agreement on Maintaining Security [negotiated between the Soeharto and Keating governments] and the substantial bilateral defence co-operation program" between the two nations.

This was before the Asian economic downturn, the collapse of the Soeharto regime, East Timor, Indonesia's repudiation of the Agreement on Maintaining Security and all that. For a time, the Australia-Indonesia relationship became part of the domestic debate in both nations. Wahid's visit, and Howard's appropriate diplomatic reception, indicate that relations between Canberra and Jakarta are mending. For the moment at least.

Not before time. For too long Australia's relationship has been adversely affected by Howard's claim that, during Keating's time, Australia had "Asia only" foreign policy. It is difficult to visualise what such a policy would have entailed. Presumably, at the very least, the unilateral abolition of the Australian-US alliance and a downgrading of Australia's historic ties with Europe. This never happened – but rejection of an alleged "Asia only" foreign policy was seen by Coalition strategists as a useful political tactic.

However, any conscious diminution of Australia's ties with the Asian region would require a turning back on the foreign policy enunciated since the end of the Pacific war by both Labor (Ben Chifley, Gough Whitlam, Hawke, Keating) and Coalition (Robert Menzies, Harold Holt, Malcolm Fraser) prime ministers. Consequently, Howard could not, and did not, demolish the Keating government's foreign policy towards Asia.

However, the Prime Minister's diplomatic language, until recently at least, has sent out a muted message that Australia does not hold the region as being as important as it was once. This has been noticed by Australians and others. Witness, for example, the debate between former Australian senior diplomat Richard Woolcott and Alexander Downer in the International Herald Tribune last month. The former head of the Foreign Affairs and Trade Department (DFAT) argued that "although Australia is geographically on the edge of Asia, it seems to have moved off the stage and into the wings in recent years", (International Herald Tribune, May 17).

What's more, according to the Woolcott view, "there is renewed scepticism in the region about the sincerity of Australia's moves to engage with South-East Asia, beyond advantageous trade relations". He cited a number of reasons for this change of attitude. However, above all, Woolcott depicted Howard's (politically motivated) criticisms of the Keating government's politics towards Asia in general – and Indonesia in particular – as primarily responsible for sending "the wrong message".

The former DFAT secretary cannot be dismissed as a member of the chattering classes who supports politically correct causes and belongs to the Leftist Luvvies for Paul Keating Fan Club. Not at all. Woolcott held senior appointments during the period of the Fraser government (when Howard was treasurer). One of the first acts of Howard as Prime Minister in March 1996 was to send Woolcott to Kuala Lumpur to meet with Dr Mahathir to improve the Australia-Malaysia relationship.

Downer recognised the significance of the Woolcott critique of the Howard Government's policy towards Asia. He replied (International Herald Tribune, May 30) that Australia "remains strongly committed to long-term, mutually beneficial relations with countries of the region".

This, no doubt, reflects the Foreign Minister's personal beliefs – along with those of Treasurer Peter Costello and former trade minister Tim Fischer. All three have been deeply involved in the Asian region, consistent with their portfolio responsibilities. However Downer did not quote even one comment from Howard about the importance of Asia to Australia.

There is no incompatibility whatsoever between Australia focusing on Asia while enhancing traditional relationships with allies and friends in North America and Western Europe. Australia's public sympathy with the Bush Administration's attitudes to China and missile defence would be better understood in the region if Asia was seen as a distinct priority for the Howard Government's foreign policy.

After all, many Asian nations maintain good relations with the US. A focus on Asia is the best way for Australia to counteract the ill-informed view – aired most recently in the Malaysia Government-controlled New Straits Times – that "Australia is America's satellite state".

Wahid's visit is an appropriate reminder of Australia's physical location in the Asian region. While the timing had nothing to do with the Howard Government, it coincides with signs of an apparent – and, if so, welcome – change in Howard's attitude to the region. In a speech on May 30, the Prime Minister commented that "the Asia-Pacific region is of overwhelming strategic importance to Australia". Last week Downer announced the Government's decision that the "funding assistance" will be provided to the ABC "to establish an Australian television service to the Asia-Pacific region". This follows a decision late last year to fund Radio Australia's short wave transmissions to the region. Both commitments effectively overturned previous expenditure cuts. All this could be regarded as mere symbolism. However, as Wahid's visit demonstrates, symbolic acts can be important.

[Gerard Henderson is executive director of The Sydney Institute.]