Abbott-watchers amateur and professional are still having trouble coming to grips with the Prime Minister’s foreign policy. The latest intellectual fad is to abandon analysis and either dismiss casually his recent regional trip to north-east Asia or chalk up his success in securing lucrative trade deals to luck. This is nonsense. Labor runs the risk of being written off as fundamentally unserious on international relations unless their statements count for something beyond crude partisanship. By now they should recognise that Mr Abbott is a supremely shrewd realist, one who sits above the confusion of the relentless 24-7 news and internet cycle and keeps his eye firmly on the national interest.

This is especially the case when one puts his engagement with Asia in the context of the period from December 2007 to September 2013. James Packer is right: the recent Labor governments ‘didn’t do a great job… of strengthening ties in our region.’ Kevin Rudd, despite all his bravado about speaking Mandarin, will merit only a solitary, unflattering footnote in the history of our two nations, courtesy of his description in 2009 of the Beijing leadership being made up of copulating rodents. As for Julia Gillard, her one foray into our lucrative south-east Asian cattle trade involved dismantling the industry without any notice or preparation, the disastrous loss of untold dollars and jobs and the wanton destruction of goodwill with our closest neighbour.

In stark contrast, Mr Abbott has returned triumphant from his recent trade mission to Japan, South Korea and China. That such a three-pronged visit was fraught with diplomatic perils cannot have escaped the nervous nellies in DFAT. After all, it was only just before Christmas that Mr Abbott stumbled by labelling Japan ‘Australia’s best friend in Asia’ and a ‘strong ally’. This was careless and regrettable. As the Americans have long known, there is only one form of words that doesn’t ruffle feathers, and that’s the nifty ‘we have no closer friend than… [fill in name of country here]’ formula.

True to form, the anointed experts had been confidently predicting how poorly the relatively new PM would perform abroad. Reckless, naive and headed for disaster, they proclaimed. And yet Mr Abbott has enhanced Australia’s image and interests throughout the region during his seven months in power. Leave aside the fact that tough border protection policies have stopped the boats without causing severed ties with Jakarta or that the storm over the intelligence row with Indonesia has seemingly passed. Mr Abbott has delivered a lucrative, sure-footed diplomatic tour de force; even down to the handling of the vexed search for MH370. Hugh White warned that ‘Beijing will be displeased,’ but the ‘disastrous’ trip was elevated to the highest level of ‘state’ visit and a trade deal worth tens of billions to the Australian economy is within reach.

The critics can fret that Mr Abbott’s free-trade agreements with Japan and South Korea do not amount to classic free trade. True enough: waiting for Tokyo to liberalise fully its agricultural market is, with apologies to super coach Jack Gibson, like leaving the porch lamp on for Harold Holt. But the critics have no policy to offer: the PM’s bilateral deals represent the only trade policy in town. The Doha multilateral round is dead and Barack Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership is stalled so long as congressional Democrats are in bed with labour unions and environmental activists.

All of this reminds us of the Howard years. Remember when Paul Keating warned that Asian leaders would not be comfortable dealing with ‘Little Johnny’? And yet many Asian leaders recognised John Howard as someone they could sit down with and forge strong relationships based on mutual interest. As they say in polite diplomatic circles: ‘Those who cannot remember the past, are bound to have it shoved back down their throats again.’