Australia’s African policies under Whitlam and Fraser had more in common than either would perhaps care to admit and that Mr Fraser’s policies in the period under review draw heavily on the legacies of the Whitlam era. Perhaps even more uncomfortably for Mr Fraser, his African policies give force to T.B. Millar’s view that his major successes in the field of foreign affairs have ’been on the groundwork laid for him by Mr Whitlam’. Given such assertions it is necessary to commence this chapter with a brief review of the 1972–75 period in order to establish exactly what were these legacies in the African context.

Australia’s interests in its external territories can conceivably have an influence on Australia’s international relations, depending on what amount of truth there is in the assertion that nowadays foreign policy and colonial policy are interconnected and interacting. These connections and reactions, however, are usually very difficult to trace and to document since they exist only in the highest national councils and behind closed doors. So far as New Guinea and Nauru in the period under review are concerned, the repercussions of Australian policy in these territories on Australian foreign policy do not seem to have been very significant. There are two main fields in which such repercussions might be felt: in Australia’s relations with the United Nations and in regard to specific international issues such as the West New Guinea question; these fields are covered more directly in other chapters in this book, and here attention is confined to an examination of those aspects of Australian “colonial” policy in New Guinea and Nauru which may have had a bearing on international relations.

To access refugee protection in Australia and Canada, refugee applicants must speak. They must present their oral testimony in person, repeatedly and at length, unmediated by a legal representative or advocate, and in many cases without the benefit of documents, witnesses or other forms of evidence to verify their claims. This book is about the oral evidence that refugees are compelled to give, the stories they are required to narrate, and the genres of storytelling they are required to master during administrative oral hearings for the assessment of refugee status in Australia and Canada. This introductory chapter establishes the book’s central concerns, namely: what the presentation, interrogation and assessment of testimony during the oral hearing tell us about the refugee subject whom Refugee Convention-signatory states judge as authentic, credible and, ultimately, acceptable. It then carefully connects the demand for narrative within RSD with the intractable problems of credibility assessment. Finally, it interrogates the role of law, lawyers and interpreters in shaping the refugee testimony and analysis presented throughout the book.

This chapter addresses the history of the refugee oral hearing in Australia and Canada. It explains how and why the oral hearing became a central event within RSD processes in each jurisdiction and traces the role of refugee testimony up until the introduction of a quasi-independent administrative process for RSD and into the present day. In both countries, the introduction of statutory RSD procedures and an oral hearing represented a shift toward enhanced administrative rights and justice for onshore refugee arrivals. However, it also occurred in the context of an increasing state focus on the ‘genuineness’ of refugees and major reforms that sought to limit and control onshore refugee arrivals in both jurisdictions. The chapter then traces more recent reforms to RSD processes in Australia and Canada. This later history reveals that the ‘right’ to fair and independent decision-making processes has become increasingly constrained in both jurisdictions, and that limiting access to RSD has become a key means by which states enact policies of refugee deterrence and exclusion.

Why does diplomacy exist? How does it contribute to a country’s national interest? How critical is it to national security? The answers to these questions are important as much for people in government as for those on the outside. A country’s diplomatic service is the steward of its national interests abroad. International civil servants, who work on the staff of multilateral organizations like the United Nations and the European Union, are supposed to serve global or regional interests. Both bilateral and multilateral diplomats manage and participate in the daily conduct of international relations. In carrying out their duties, they work within a diplomacy architecture–systems that have been established at the national and global levels. Before we discuss these systems, we need to understand how diplomacy relates to other key terms and concepts, such as national interest, national security and foreign policy.

Economic tradecraft is a set of duties, responsibilities and skills required of diplomats working in economic affairs. It is a key instrument in the diplomatic tradecraft toolbox. As is the case with their colleagues in the political career track, economic officers work both at diplomatic missions abroad and at headquarters. On the surface, it may appear that a country’s economic and commercial diplomats do the same type of work abroad, but that is not quite the case. Economic officers inform policymaking at headquarters by monitoring and analyzing economic trends and developments in the receiving state. They also advocate for host-government policies aimed at leveling the playing field for companies from the home country and against regulations that hurt those businesses. Commercial diplomats directly help industries and individual companies in starting or expanding business and investment in the host country. Conversely, they facilitate investment by local firms in the home country.

This chapter completes the book’s examination of the impossible narrative position faced by refugee applicants by examining how specific genres enter the hearing room and further determine the ‘authentic’ refugee that states are willing to accept. Drawing on Joseph R Slaughter’s engagement with the genre of human rights discourse, it argues that like the protagonist of the classic Bildungsroman and human rights narratives, refugee applicants are expected to narrate a linear progression from a non-citizen ‘outsider’ towards full civic incorporation through the seeking of protection and the resolution of refugee status. In this generic mode, refugee applicants were expected to present evidence as omniscient narrators with sovereignty over self and others, and the ability to account not only for their own actions but also the decisions and interior worlds of others. Crucially, the ‘good’ refugee’s story moves steadily towards complete resolution that is the determination of refugee status and the realisation of a liberal personhood, marked by self-possession and autonomy, and readiness to become a refugee-citizen.

The first time I remember being aware of diplomats was a television news report I saw at age 10 in 1984, about a meeting between U.S. Secretary of State George Shultz and Soviet Foreign Minister Andrei Gromyko. In the next five years, as I watched more television footage of Shultz and his successor, James Baker, coming down the stairs of a white-and-blue plane with “United States of America” emblazoned on it, I wondered why these men’s frequent travels commanded seemingly endless media attention.

Put simply–although nothing about it is simple–public diplomacy is diplomacy carried out in public, as opposed to most of diplomacy, which is done in private. It is a set of activities that inform, engage and influence international public opinion to support policy objectives or create goodwill for the home country. It is important to understand what public diplomacy is not. It is not an advertising campaign to get foreigners to like your country–even if they dislike it, they can still support, or at least accept, a particular policy or action. It is not a propaganda effort to mislead or lie to audiences for tactical or other advantage. It is a sustained endeavor that advances your country’s policies and reflects a solid understanding of the host-country’s language, culture, history and traditions. Both public diplomacy and propaganda are means to project power.

Diplomacy skills matter, and the widespread perception that anyone with common sense can be trusted with a diplomatic position, even without proper qualifications, is misguided and dangerous. Diplomacy is a serious business. The matters that diplomats deal with are too important to be left to amateurs. There are careers that do not require a new hire to possess any special skills on day one; diplomacy is not such a profession. Diplomats must have most basic skills so that they can hit the ground running. In fact, they are expected to have them before joining a diplomatic service, because most governments do not provide much substantive training to new officers. Although different career tracks–political, economic, consular, management and public diplomacy–require some specialized knowledge and abilities, most diplomatic skill sets are universal. This chapter covers the key aspects of diplomatic tradecraft, on which the rest of the book will elaborate and expound.

Health and science diplomacy is the activity of deploying international cooperation in the service of science and public health, and using global health and science efforts to achieve foreign-policy goals. As a bridge between the scientific community and decision-makers in government, a science or health diplomat must understand the work of both and, ideally, how they think. Scientists see a pattern or anomaly in nature and try to gather data and evidence to explain it. They publish their findings in peer-reviewed scientific journals. But those findings also have to be packaged and communicated to nonscientists, because the data rarely speaks for itself. This is where science diplomats come in. They need to understand the evidence and incorporate it into persuasive arguments that can influence policymakers to elevate the potential threat as a priority and take action.

A diplomatic mission is an organization like no other. Its members live and work away from home, and the line between their professional and personal lives is blurred to an extent most outsiders do not fully understand or appreciate. In the average workplace, a supervisor is not concerned with what employees do at home. That is not the case in a diplomatic mission. Its staff is a community, and excessive drinking, a nasty divorce, threats of violence or a suicide is not just one family’s problem. It affects the section in which that person works, and often the entire mission. The chief of mission has not only authority over almost everyone at post, but also responsibility for their security and well-being. So managing such a workplace is a unique and daunting task, made even more difficult by being in a foreign country.