ASPI Defence Almanac Launch

Launch of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Australian Defence Almanac 2004-05

Mr Ric Smith, AO PSM, Secretary of the Department of Defence and ASPI Council member, launched the inaugural ASPI Australian Defence Almanac on Thursday, 30 September 2004. Attending the function were representatives from major defence industry corporations and senior Government officials.

Mr Smith congratulated ASPI on the choice of the subject of the Australian Defence Almanac and the timing of it release. He said, “one of ASPI’s critical roles is to support informed public debate about Defence and security issues. The new Almanac provides a baseline for that debate”.

Mr Smith said, “not only does the Almanac set out the basic numbers of Defence – its people, money and facilities – it also provides a history of the organisation and enumerates operations as far as 1947. It includes a useful list of treaties, conventions and agreements to which Australia is a party, and the international inter-governmental bodies that we’re members of. There is also a chapter on terrorism, which includes a description of our counter-terrorism arrangements”.

Mr Smith concluded, “the Almanac is a first rate contribution to an understanding of Australian Defence and security issues; a common set of facts for all of us to work from, and from which the debate can proceed”.

The ASPI Australian Defence Almanac 2004-2005 is of great value to anyone who wants information on the full range of Australian Defence activity. The Almanac is available for purchase on the ASPI website: http://www.aspi.org.au or by contacting ASPI on (02) 6270 5100.

Cleared for immediate release: Friday, 1 October 2004
Media Comment: Mr Raspal Khosa on (02) 6270 5103 (office) or 0412 246872 (mobile)

Australia-India Reengagement: Common Security Concerns, Converging Strategic Horizons, Complementary Force Structures

Release of Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Strategic Insight No. 11/2004

ASPI today released its latest Strategic Insight Australia-India Reengagement: Common Security Concerns, Converging Strategic Horizons, Complementary Force Structures.

Written by Ms Jenelle Bonnor and Professor Varun Sahni, the co-convenors of the Australia-India Security Roundtable, the paper argues that Australia and India have covered a considerable distance since bilateral defence and security relations were reestablished in 2000 after a two-and-a-half-year hiatus. There is now a well-established habit of dialogue between the two governments, particularly on strategic issues. This dialogue has built the foundation for a more substantial and predictable security relationship.

But for security relations to become more concrete, there is a need to move beyond discussions, important though they are, and to focus on increasing the number of bilateral exchanges and other forms of practical cooperation.

Australia and India share common security concerns, particularly the threat of terrorism. Their respective strategic horizons, in the eastern Indian Ocean and beyond, are converging. And their military establishments-though differing considerably in size and shape, are complementary: they have much to learn from the other, both in areas where they share expertise as well as in areas of dissimilarity. There is therefore significant scope for closer strategic and security cooperation between Australia and India.

The report is available on our web site http://www.aspi.org.au or can be obtained by contacting ASPI on (02) 6270 5100.

UNDERSTANDING TERRORISM: 20 BASIC FACTS

Release of Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Strategic Insight No. 10/2004

ASPI today released its latest Strategic InsightUnderstanding Terrorism: 20 basic facts by ASPI Program Director, Aldo Borgu.

Terrorism is a major contemporary security problem and will remain so for the foreseeable future. But as we approach the third anniversary of the attacks of September 11 and despite the fact that modern terrorism is a phenomenon that policy makers have been dealing with for at least 40 years, the concept of terrorism itself still seems little understood and much misrepresented.

In the paper Aldo Borgu presents twenty basic facts about the nature of terrorism, the threat to Australia and some of the required policy responses. These facts are in no particular order, many are interconnected, and most might seem blatantly obvious, but that doesn’t mean they aren’t worth restating and remembering from time to time. They include the following:

Terrorism, even in its contemporary form, is not a new phenomenon

Terrorists target us as much for what we do as who we are

Terrorism has more sophisticated aims than just killing people

The global war on terror does not compare to the Cold War

The United States has made Iraq the front line in their war on terror

In the short to medium-term the terrorist threat to Australia is more likely to originate overseas

Terrorism can’t be met primarily or even predominantly through military force

We currently lack decent measures of success against terrorism

The only way to combat terrorism is with a comprehensive long-term grand strategy.

The tragic events in Jakarta and Beslan in the past week only further confirm any number of these facts.

Attitude Matters: Public opinion in Australia towards defence and security

Release of the ASPI’s Strategy report on public opinion in Australia towards defence and security.

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released its report Attitude Matters: Public Opinion in Australia towards defence and security which provides the most comprehensive and up-to-date survey of Australian public opinion on defence and security issues.

Attitude Matters was written by Professor Ian McAllister of the Australian National University, with additional contributions by Peter Jennings and Brendan McRandle of ASPI. Prof McAllister is one of Australia’s leading academic expert on public opinion. He has charted community views on defence and security policy through the Australian Electoral Survey (AES)-a major poll of Australians coinciding with each general election from as far back as the late 1960s through to the last federal election in 2001. The paper also draws on more recent polling on Iraq, the US alliance and other key security issues.

McAllister writes that, “the end of the Cold War, the 11 September and Bali attacks, and events in the Middle East, have all combined to undermine many of the certainties which informed the public’s long-standing views on defence and national security during the latter half of the twentieth century. There is now greater volatility in public opinion on defence issues than at any time in the recent past.”

“As defence and security enter mainstream political debate, the public’s awareness of the policy options is likely to increase. As a result, the traditional policy freedom that successive governments have enjoyed in the area is likely to diminish.”

“The relationship between policy-making and public opinion is complex and often the subject of heated debate. Policy decision-makers cannot afford to be led by opinion polls. Indeed at times our political leaders must try to change public opinion rather than follow it. Equally though, governments ignore public opinion at their peril. Policies that get too far out of step with what the community is broadly prepared to support will not survive in the long-term”, writes Peter Jennings, Director of Programs at ASPI.

“This publication provides some fascinating insights and tells us a great deal about how Australians have responded to local and world events. It contains important information for policy makers and commentators” said Brendan McRandle, Outreach Program Director at ASPI. “Of particular interest is the way increasing numbers of Australians have identified Indonesia as a security threat, yet over the same period, the public has become much less worried by China”. Professor McAllister’s work shows that, “To all intents and purposes, Indonesia has replaced China as the focus of the public’s threat assessment.”

Is the Joint Strike Fighter good enough?

Release of the ASPI’s Strategic Insight no. 9/2004 on Australia’s air combat capability

ASPI today released its latest Strategic InsightIs the JSF good enough? Can Australia’s air combat requirements be met by the JSF, or do we need the F/A-22? This paper looks at the job to be done by the RAAF’s air combat forces and the systems, tactics and networks required to maintain a capability edge. A comparison is made between the JSF and the F/A-22 aircraft.

The author of the paper is Air Marshal Angus Houston, Chief of Air Force. ASPI is pleased to provide the RAAF with an opportunity to offer the most detailed explanation yet on the case for the Joint Strike Fighter.

Key points from the paper include:

“Australia’s air combat capability is on the threshold of a new era as the F-111 and F/A-18 approach the end of their service lives.”

“The strength of our future air combat capability-and our largest defence project ever-is a matter of strategic importance.”

“We will maintain our capability edge by developing a network-centric air combat system.”

“The JSF will be a true fifth generation, stealthy, multi-role, single-seat, single-engine, fighter aircraft.”

“The JSF is intended to set new benchmarks in affordability, availability and supportability for a high-performance stealth aircraft.”

Air Marshal Houston concludes by saying; “The JSF is the more cost effective option for us.”

The paper reflects the views of Air Marshal Houston and does not necessarily represent the position of ASPI on any particular issue.

YOUR DEFENCE DOLLAR: THE 2004-05 DEFENCE BUDGET

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released its summary budget report Your Defence Dollar: The 2004-05 Defence Budget.

The report is a condensed version of the 2004 ASPI Budget Brief: The Cost of Defence that was released in May two weeks after the budget.

Accordingly, while The Cost of Defence contains an extensive and detailed analysis of the Defence budget, Your Defence Dollar is a more succinct and accessible document.

In releasing the publication, Dr Thomson said that:

“There is a surprisingly large amount of new money for national security and Defence, notwithstanding the emphasis given to Tax and Family in this year’s pre-election budget.”

“Specific measures for Defence include $816 million for logistics, $654 million for personnel, $300 million for estate upkeep and $132 million to maintain our deployment to Iraq until the middle of 2005.”

“But just like last year, there continues to be a slow shift of spending away from capital investment in future capability to spending on today’s personnel and operating costs.”

“This budget announced that around $2.2 billion of previously planned investment in new military equipment would be deferred from the first part of this decade to beyond 2007-08 because it has become increasingly clear that Defence simply cannot spend the money as quickly as first thought.”

“To improve the delivery of investment projects, there are major reforms under way in the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) whose job it is to acquire new equipment.

“This had better work. Later this decade, when the deferred investment funds reappear in the budget, DMO is going to really have its work cut out for it.” 

” Overall there have been visible improvements in Defence’s budget discipline, planning and reporting compared with a couple of years ago, nevertheless we think that more could be done to ensure that value for money is being delivered.”

“We’re into the central years of the 10-year White Paper funding period and, as yet, the Government has not decided what Defence funding will be past 2010. That’s one of the reasons why we called for a new White Paper in our 2004 Strategic Assessment.”

THE AGENDA FOR INTELLIGENCE REFORM

ASPI today released its latest Strategic Insight: The Agenda for Intelligence Reform by ASPI Director of Programs, Peter Jennings.

This paper proposes reforms to the structure and activities of the Australian Intelligence Community designed to strengthen the capacity of the agencies performing intelligence analysis and to build a stronger sense of shared professionalism across the intelligence community.

At a time when Australia faces its most challenging strategic outlook since the mid-1960s, no issue is more important to Australia’s security than the capabilities of our intelligence agencies.

Peter Jennings presents seven reforms that Government could adopt to strengthen the analytical depth and the organisational coherence of the intelligence community:

Establish an Intelligence College to provide common training, principally for ONA and DIO analysts, in the methods and content of strategic analysis.

Analytical agencies should develop a common recruiting strategy, pooling resources for advertising, interviewing, induction, and conducting psychological and security assessments.

Implement a program of AIC staff placements into the critical policy-making centres of the Departments of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade and Prime Minister and Cabinet.

Review whether there should be a separate position of Director of Intelligence, independent of the collection or assessment roles of any agency. This new position would provide a strong focus to help integrate the agencies’ analytical reporting.

Create a Long Term Assessments Centre, with a specific charter to research the broad strategic trends that act out over a decade or more.

Develop a strategy to manage the huge volume of open source material in ways that give analysts access to the right information and the means to integrate it into classified assessments.

Pay closer attention to how intelligence agencies manage their public profile.

These reforms will strengthen the analytical capacities of our intelligence agencies, by boosting training and professional development opportunities for analysts, and by strengthening the profile and position of the AIC with the addition of a new Director of Intelligence.

Burgeoning Chinese economy influencing Northeast Asia

Release of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI’s) latest publication ‘Power Shift: Challenges for Australia in Northeast Asia’

NORTHEAST Asia’s importance to the world economy and international security is uncontested but it is also a subregion undergoing an historic transition

Griffith University International Relations experts Professor William Tow and Associate Professor Russell Trood have developed an important strategy report titled Power Shift: Challenges for Australian in Northeast Asia which was released today (June 7) by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) and the Griffith Asia Pacific Research Institute (GAPRI).

The report discusses five key emerging factors in Australia’s evolving relations with Northeast Asia. These are:

China’s rising economic strength and growing strategic engagement with the region.

The movement towards “normalisation” in Japan

The shifting power structures and strategic allegiances on the Korean peninsula

The strengthening of the nexus between economic and security issues

A tendency towards diplomatic balancing instead of hegemonic competition, as the USA restructures its strategic presence.

Discussing the report, Professor William Tow said there were emerging trends with the potential to define Australia’s economic relationship with Northeast Asia.

“The remarkable performance of the Chinese economy is not only driving regional economies, but is also shaping the region’s political and security environment,” he said.

“If momentum builds, and there are some signs that it will, the region might move to deepen economic cooperation.

“The risk for Australia is that it may be more exclusively Asian in its membership.”

Associate Professor Trood explained that although Australia has a tradition of engagement with the region, was a valued economic partner in its growing prosperity, and was respected for its capacity and willingness to contribute to regional security, Canberra’s relations with the countries of Southeast Asia received more attention.

“Our current security debate is mainly about how extensively Canberra should complement Washington’s main strategic priority, namely the global war on terrorism in the aftermath of September 11,” Associate Professor Trood said.

“However, disturbingly absent from active consideration is how we could most effectively engage East Asia’s most formidable powers to take advantage of opportunities and help them meet the challenges shaping their future,” he said.

“Australia needs to respond to the changes that are taking place, and interpreting the trends will be an important challenge for us to ensure our own future prosperity.”

Among guests attending today’s launch of the strategy report were Professor Robert Sutter (Georgetown University, Washington DC), ASPI Program Director – Outreach Mr Brendan McRandle, Head of Griffith’s Department of International Business and Asian Studies Associate Professor Leong Liew, Vice Chancellor Professor Glyn Davis, and Professors Colin Mackerras, Nick Knight, Yan Islam and Associate Professor Bill Case.

THE COST OF DEFENCE: ASPI DEFENCE BUDGET BRIEF 2004-05

Release of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI’s) Defence budget Brief 2004-05

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released its report The Cost of Defence: ASPI Defence Budget Brief 2004-05.

This document has been written to give interested readers greater access to the complex workings of the Defence Budget and to promote informed debate on Defence budget issues.

In releasing the publication, Dr Thomson said that:

“There is a surprisingly large amount of new money for national security and Defence, notwithstanding the emphasis given to Tax and Family in this year’s pre-election budget.” 

“Specific measures for Defence include $815 million for logistics, $654 million for personnel, $300 million for estate upkeep and $132 million to maintain our deployment to Iraq until the middle of 2005.”

“But just like last year, there continues to be a slow shift of spending away from capital investment in future capability to spending on today’s personnel and operating costs.”

“This budget announced that around $2.2 billion of previously planned investment in new military equipment would be deferred from the first part of this decade to beyond 2007-08 because it has become increasingly clear that Defence simply cannot spend the money as quickly as first thought.”

“To improve the delivery of investment projects, there are major reforms under way in the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) whose job it is to acquire new equipment.

“This had better work. Later this decade, when the deferred investment funds reappear in the budget, DMO is going to really have its work cut out for it.”

” Overall there have been visible improvement in Defence’s budget discipline, planning and reporting compared with a couple of years ago, nevertheless we think that more could be done to ensure that value for money is being delivered.”

“We’re into the central years of the 10-year White Paper funding period and, as yet, the Government has not decided what Defence funding will be past 2010. That’s one of the reasons why we called for a new White Paper in our 2004 Strategic Assessment.”

BEYOND BAGHDAD: ASPI’S STRATEGIC ASSESSMENT 2004

Release of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s (ASPI’s) Strategic Assessment 2004

The Australian Strategic Policy Institute today released its report Beyond Baghdad: ASPI’s Strategic Assessment 2004.

“Australia faces its most challenging and turbulent strategic outlook since the mid-1960s.”

This is the key judgement in Beyond Baghdad, the Australian Strategic Policy Institute’s 2004 Strategic Assessment, released today.

ASPI’s annual Strategic Assessment is Australia’s only public survey of the full range of defence and security issues facing the nation. Beyond Baghdad was written by ASPI Director of Programs, Peter Jennings.

Among the issues covered in Beyond Baghdad:

Terrorists will attack Australia if they identify an opportunity. We have little choice but to take al Qaeda at its word when it claims that Australia is a target.

Iraq’s future prospects are poised on a knife edge. One possible outcome is the creation of a stable, more open and prosperous regime in the Middle East. The other is anarchy, and a substantial rebuff to America’s place in the world.

A new age of warfare, where precision strike weapons and low-technology fertiliser bombs compete uneasily for dominance.

America’s economic and military power will make it the world’s strongest state for the foreseeable future. Australia’s defence alliance with the US remains vital, and we should look for new ways to strengthen cooperation while retaining our independent approach to security.

In North Asia, the character of Chinese power is the dominating strategic issue. In Japan, a brighter economic picture is matched by more outward-looking foreign and security policies.

Southeast Asian governments are struggling with economic modernisation, weak administrations, terrorism, and leadership transitions. 

In the South Pacific, Australia must ask tough questions about the long-term viability of the island states.

In an age when security problems are horizontal – with challenges as diverse as terrorism and border security — our government structures are narrowly vertical.

Beyond Baghdad calls for the government to accelerate progress towards developing a national security strategy.