When Australian band Midnight Oil took the stage of the Sydney Olympic Stadium in 2000 to perform their reconciliation anthem "Beds Are Burning," with the word SORRY printed in their black outfits, John Howard was present; perhaps the most distressed member of the enthusiastic audience as the whole world was in tune for the closing ceremony of the Sydney 2000 Summer Olympics.
Eight years later, when in 13 February 2008 Kevin Rudd delivered the official apology in front of the Parliament to the “stolen generations” of indigenous Australians, the former PM was absent. Yet, the world was paying attention again, as the long-awaited apology terminated 11 years of waiting by Aborigines asking the country’s government to formally apologise for the plights of thousands of indigenous removed forcibly from their families.
Nevertheless, John Howard’s powerful legacy can still be felt, as his long-lasting refusal to apologise is unavoidably casting a shadow over today’s developments. As Tim Rowse explains in his openDemocracy article, Australia’s apology: the shadow on the sun, the aspirations of the 13 February moment could be derailed by decisions and policies entrenched during Howard’s tenure that still continue to influence Australian politics.
Rudd’s apology might have ended an 11-year waiting, but has also sparked a new debate regarding its symbolic meaning and the changes it can actually deliver. Noel Pearson, an indigenous leader and director at the Cape York Institute for Policy and Leadership, examines the apology in cultural, political and historical terms and calls into question its intentions and effectiveness. He raises the issue of compensations, arguing that “Blackfellas will get the words, the whitefellas will keep the money.”
Tara McCormack, a lecturer in European Union studies and International Relations at the University of Westminster, views Rudd’s step as “deeply paternalistic.” She reminds in her analysis at spiked the example of Australia’s Northern Territory apology in 2001 to highlight the “meaninglessness” of such moves. For McCormack, “Rudd is using the aboriginal apology to carve out a new moral identity for his administration.”
That particular portray of a moral administration is an unequivocal goal of Australia’s new government, which could also be used us a tool to the country’s foreign policy realities; especially after its recent decision to increase its presence, and thus its influence, in oil-rich East Timor amid stability concerns. Daniel Flitton, diplomatic editor of The Age, looks at the challenges that follow this decision and spells out the need for a clearer plan.
