ON THE eve of the change of federal government in 1996, the soon-to-be foreign minister, Alexander Downer, said he would end Labor's long-held insistence that Australia's role in the world was as a "middle power".

Downer insisted Australia was more than this: it was "strong" and "considerable and "significant"; Labor's "middle-child complex" would be shelved in favour of a proactive and central role on the global stage.

This week, in his first major foreign policy address as Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd marked a departure from the Downer years and reverted to a vision of the world in which Australia would pursue "an active, creative middle-power diplomacy". He laid out a seemingly bold program to address climate change, security and economic issues by developing and enhancing partnerships in the region and beyond.

The rhetoric was grand, if not grandiose, and well-timed to justify a 18-day trip across the world. But it remains to be seen whether Rudd's vision will mark a significant departure beyond the rhetorical shift. Certainly, the main plank of Australian foreign policy - the commitment to the United States alliance - has not budged. Rudd's first stop this week is Washington and his speech left little ambiguity about his view of the alliance, describing the US as "an overwhelming force for good in the world".

The most marked shift is Rudd's expression of commitment to multilateralism, the UN and international rule-making. He has sought to repair the Howard government's fractious relationship with Papua New Guinea, made an Australian bid to host next year's Pacific Islands forum and indicated Australia will sign the Optional Protocol to the UN Convention Against Torture.

"The Howard government basically played a pretty dead bat to the UN, even though Downer has been denying it," says Richard Leaver, an associate professor of international relations at Flinders University. "Broadly speaking, Howard and Downer bought the Republican American line and almost banished multilateralism from the diplomatic phrase book."

Although Rudd's commitment to multilateralism and international law sets him apart from the Howard government, his shift happens to coincide with a recent, corresponding shift in the White House that is likely to continue up to and after the coming US presidential election.

Rudd's decision to sign Kyoto and withdraw from Iraq - and his pledge to act "bilaterally, plurilaterally and multilaterally" - are unlikely, as Allan Gyngell, the executive director of the Lowy Institute, says, to put Australia at odds with the US.

"The glory days of American unilateralism have now passed," Gyngell says. "I think the Government has handled the relationship with the US very skilfully. He will be received very warmly as an old ally."

Aside from criticism of Rudd's handling of the relationship with Japan, the Coalition has yet to develop a clear response. The rhetoric, as Gyngell says, matters little. "Australia is the size that Australia is," he says. "We are not a great power, we are not a small power. I don't particularly like the definition of middle power. I don't think it means very much. It's a war about nothing."

The real question for the Coalition is not whether it discards Downer's disdain for Australia as a "middling power" but whether it subscribes to Rudd's belief in a new era of global engagement. It was clear from recent infighting over a book by a Liberal senator, Russell Trood, which largely supports Rudd's activist middle-power course, that the Opposition has not yet decided whether to embrace Rudd's passion for a "robust international rules-based order".

Source: The Sydney Morning Herald