ASPI today released a new Strategic Insight publication ‘Beyond belief: Islamism, radicalisation and the counter-terrorism response’ examining the strategies employed by Dutch, British and Singaporean agencies to counter radicalisation. It finds they blend a proactive, managerial policy that addresses issues of cohesion, identity and alienation and seeks to build more effective relationships with local Muslim communities at the provincial and metropolitan level, with a more determined prosecution of those promoting the ideology and practice of jihadism at the national level. While Australian security agencies don’t face a radicalised Islamism here that has developed to the capacity of its European equivalent, our homeland security will require the cooperation of Australia’s Islamic communities, which represent 1.7 % of the population. The paper suggests five measures that should be undertaken to prevent the type of violent extremism that has evolved in Europe and elsewhere from establishing itself in Australia. 

• Crafting a long-term policy response to drain the ideological swamp in which radicalisation thrives, before it becomes fully established. A national counter-radicalisation strategy should be developed by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG).
• Establish an Australian Muslim National Security Forum to develop strategies for tackling extremism that may lead to acts of terrorism while enhancing cooperation between Australia’s Islamic communities, state and federal Police.
• Establish a Major Urban Counter-Terrorism Policing Program to assist state police improve their capacity to interdict violent extremism.
• Australian Muslims must continue their efforts to make clear that they have no sympathy with groups promoting extremism.
• An information hub on the research undertaken both here and overseas on counter – radicalisation.

  “To ensure the homegrown terrorist threat is both contained and over time negated, security, police and national leaders will need to reassure Australian Muslims that they can practice their faith freely and that they have a place within a pluralist Australian society. Integrated into wider social networks, they are less likely to experience the rejection and alienation that militant Islamists seek to exploit,” says report co-author Dr Anthony Bergin.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has today released a new Special Report, A Change in Climate for the Australian Defence Force by Anthony Bergin, Director of Research Programs for ASPI and Jacob Townsend, an ASPI Research Analyst.

The report outlines numerous ways that the issue and impacts of climate change may affect the Australian Defence Force (ADF). Climate change has implications for what the ADF does and how it operates.

Possibilities include:
– More border protection activities to police marine resources and cope with ‘climate refugees’.
– More disaster response missions at home and abroad.
– More counter-proliferation missions and responsibilities.
– Incorporation of climate change impacts into procurement decisions, such as by taking into account temperature increases and paying greater attention to greenhouse gas emissions.
– More intrusive energy and emissions reporting requirements.
– Implementing carbon offsets for ADF emissions. Defence may be able to earn substantial amounts from offsets on its sizeable land holdings.
– Interest in more disaster-specific or dual-use equipment.
– Complications for training on land and at sea.
– Participation in climate change information-gathering. 
– More energy research, including alternative energies, which may have added benefits of improving operational performance.
– Re-fitting bases for low emissions.
– Re-considering decisions on where to base assets.
– A shrinking recruitment pool and risks to personnel from changing disease distributions.
– Further use of simulators instead of ‘live’ training.
– Assessing the threats to bases — including ports — from climate change impacts and budgeting for their protection, reconstruction or re-location.
– More cooperative agreements and peacetime training with disaster relief NGOs and private contractors.

The report recommends that the Department of Defence consider establishing a small section to analyse and prepare the ADF for the risks and opportunities that climate change will present. The biggest challenge will be changing Defence behaviour and systems without reducing ADF operational capability.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released The Cost of Defence: ASPI Defence Budget Brief 2007-08.

This document has been written to give readers greater access to the complex workings of the Defence budget and to promote informed debate on defence budget issues. 
 
In releasing the document, ASPI Defence Analyst Mark Thomson said:

This year’s budget capped off an extraordinary thirteen month period that saw the government promise more than $41 billion worth of new defence initiatives over eleven years; around $16 billion last budget, $14 billion this budget, and more than $11 billion in between.

As a result, next financial year the Defence budget will reach $22 billion. This is an increase of $2.1 billion over the funding for this year, and represents 2% of GDP.

Key initiatives in this year’s budget included $6.1 billion over ten years for 24 Super Hornet F/A-18F aircraft, $1.8 billion for additional logistics and $1.3 billion for C-17 operating costs.

Another $1.3 billion in operational supplementation was provided which will bring the accumulated cost of the ADF’s commitment to Iraq to $2 billion and Afghanistan to $1.7 billion.

Unfortunately, Defence’s long-troubled acquisition processes again looks to be faltering. $2.1 million of previously planned investment in new equipment has been deferred over the past six months. Further delays cannot be discounted given the ambitious program of investment.

In a positive sign, the size of the permanent ADF has grown rather than fallen for the first time in four years – albeit by only 325 personnel. With an extra 5,500 people required over the next decade, the government is not taking any chances and has provided $2.1 billion over ten years for recruitment and retention (on top of $1 billion provided late last year).

Despite all the money flowing into Defence, still more money will be needed to cover the personnel and operating costs of new capabilities that will be delivered over the next few years. With an election due this year in which fiscal rectitude will be in stark focus, the question is: how much of the projected surplus will be needed to deliver the government’s plans for the defence force?  

ASPI has today released a new Special Report publication, Are we ready? Healthcare preparedness for catastrophic terrorism by Anthony Bergin, Director of Research Programs, ASPI and Raspal Khosa, Research Fellow, ASPI.

In this report the authors suggest that while positive steps have been taken in recent years, there are deficiencies in our healthcare system for mass casualty care. It suggests that further steps need to be taken to meet our healthcare preparedness, response and recovery goals for mass casualty incidents. While recognising that some hospital resource issues would need a response by the States, there are significant steps that can and should be taken by the Australian Government.

Key recommendations:

* a national summit should be convened to examine policies and practices for mass casualty disaster healthcare preparedness

* a national crisis centre that provides a common operating picture for all Australian government agencies should be established
 
* audits of national healthcare preparedness on a state-by-state basis for major disasters must be conducted and publicly released.

* national minimum standards for hospitals dealing with mass casualty disasters should be set.

* the healthcare system must be drawn into counter-terrorism exercises

* in the event of a disaster there should be a mechanism to limit general public access to mobile phone networks to guarantee communications between health workers and first responders

* the government’s national security website should provide practical information on health aspects of emergency response 

* funding research into disaster medicine should be a priority

* the federal government should provide funding to upgrade inadequate existing CBD healthcare facilities to function as disaster triage hospitals.
 
* the Commonwealth should contract with one or more commercial carriers to supply suitably qualified flight crews and large passenger jets for large volume casualty airlift

*  the states and territories should  maintain databases of volunteer healthcare personnel who could provide first aid to the walking wounded and reassurance to the uninjured following a mass casualty incident

* a Centre for Lessons Learned should be established to act as a repository for emergency response information 

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute has today released a new Strategic Insight publication, Hercules or Sisyphus? Building capacity in the Asia–Pacific by Roland Rich, the author of several books on democratisation and development.

The report recommends a broadening of Australia’ aid program for regional countries to facilitate the development of vital private sectors as the key to economic development.

‘Continuing to strengthen governments and civil societies in developing countries that have a weak private sector is not a recipe that can lead to national success. It ignores the critical necessity for a viable private sector.’

The report argues that a new strategy is needed to involve the private sector directly to help build the capacity of the business sector in developing countries.

The report recommends a ground-breaking strategic approach; amending the Australian tax rules to encourage companies to become directly involved in building private sector capacities in developing countries by allowing them to deduct from their taxable income the full costs incurred in providing such assistance.

‘Taxpayers in donor countries will not have to pay for this initiative. It is not to be funded from public money. Nor does it require additional bureaucratic machinery for implementation. Its major strength is that it is not a public sector initiative’ according to the report.