Tag Archive for: Australia

ASPI’s decades: Guarding the guardians

ASPI celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. This series looks at ASPI’s work since its creation in August 2001.

In the post-9/11 era, the oldest of questions for any republic still mattered in the capital of the Australian Commonwealth: ‘Who will guard the guardians?’

Canberra’s discussion was about securing freedom and rights while delivering safety and security.

Some of the debate was about traditional constitutional topics, such as parliament’s role in national security and controlling ministerial power. Other dimensions went to the uses and limitations of intelligence.

The guardians were reviewed and remade. A departmental federation of border and security agencies was formed.

A report on ‘creative tension’ between parliament and national security, by Anthony Bergin and Russell Trood, advocated robust checks and balances: ‘Enhancing parliament’s role in national security would reinforce Executive accountability, expand public access to policy processes, improve the quality of public debate about national security and strengthen our democratic foundations.’

The two analysts (and Trood was also a former Liberal senator) knew that ministers would remain dominant in foreign and security policy. But parliament had a growing role in overseeing intelligence and security, to move the needle in the direction of change:

Executive and ministerial resistance has often been cloaked in rhetoric about defending traditional ministerial prerogatives and the values of the Westminster system, but when change has occurred its impact on those prerogatives and values has been limited and it hasn’t significantly degraded Executive authority. But reform has changed the institutional culture of the parliament. It has legitimised parliament’s role as an increasingly important partner of the Executive in the conduct of Australia’s national security policy. There’s undoubtedly room for further expansion of this role.

In 2017, ASPI published the first edition of its annual Counterterrorism yearbook, with a preface by former Indonesian president Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono:

It is a matter of certainty that terrorism will continue to be the key challenge to national and international security. It is extremely difficult to know when and where the next attack will occur. Each of us—no matter how distant, or how powerful, or how seemingly peaceful—can be a potential target.

The head of ASPI’s Counter-Terrorism Policy Centre, Jacinta Carroll, wrote that the core issue was the conundrum of protecting society from terrorist violence while maintaining other human rights:

CT practitioners will advise their governments to change laws, take additional security measures, and conduct operations to make the environment harder for terrorists, and also ensure that terrorists are held to account. The net result of these additional measures can, however, be restrictions on the very liberty that the terrorists are aiming to undermine.

ASPI’s analysts debated the benefits and pitfalls of sharing intelligence between the federal, state and territory governments to counter terrorism. Bergin argued that Australia needed a national security information-sharing system to combat criminal and terrorist activity:

Speeding up the current system of access for police around the country is sensible. But what’s also needed is real-time access to information from law-enforcement agencies and the intelligence community across the nation. Currently, law enforcement and intelligence agencies use separate systems to identify threats to the community.

Isaac Kfir responded with a warning about potential downsides and the need for cautious implementation and giving information context: ‘What is often missed in the conversation about intelligence sharing is that granting access also means establishing new vulnerabilities. By having a uniform platform to share intelligence, many more individuals will have access to sensitive intelligence.’

John Coyne remarked that ASPI found itself dealing with multiple layers of Australian government, from local councils to the halls of Canberra. He noted that the application of intelligence methodologies had rapidly expanded in both the private and public sectors over the past 15 years. Popular culture saw intelligence as a ‘magic bullet’ to all national security problems, he said—an idea that was more science fiction than fact. In the race to exploit the value of intelligence, the understanding of intelligence as a process and an output had been diluted, Coyne wrote:

Unsurprisingly, most intelligence professionals don’t want access to more data, but access to more of the right data at the right time. With an increasing number of analysts collating data, the task of joining the dots between disparate data points is ever more difficult. Unsurprisingly, increasing the number of data collators may not result in any tangible improvement in output or outcome.

In another piece, Coyne reflected on some truisms about ‘increasingly diversified and complex’ domestic security threats gleaned from his 25 years working in intelligence:

I am not lamenting the simple life of days gone by, nor seeking to create fear. I am reflecting on the way the consequences of cyber-attacks, terrorism and foreign influence in our day-to-day life have increased in severity and regularity. It’s hard to argue that non-state actors including terrorists, hackers and organised crime figures haven’t increased their capacity to negatively impact upon our day-to-day life. The evidence, including the normalisation of security measures, is everywhere.

Getting domestic security settings wrong could mean mass-casualty attacks, lost economic opportunities, poor policy decisions, even rigged elections. Coyne offered two linked conclusions: ‘we have to accept that we are not as safe at home as we once were’ and there was less trust in government.

Those seeking resources and powers for national security, he wrote, also had to offer more transparency and accountability—pointing to a big new Canberra creation, the Department of Home Affairs.

In July 2017, Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced ‘the most significant reform of Australia’s national intelligence and domestic security arrangements in more than 40 years’.

The intelligence changes were based on the recommendations of an independent review: transform the Office of National Assessments into the Office of National Intelligence, headed by a director-general of national intelligence, and make the Australian Signals Directorate into a statutory agency within the Defence portfolio.

The revolution in the domestic security structure, however, wasn’t one considered or recommended by the review. It was all the prime minister’s own work—the creation of a Home Affairs portfolio to cover immigration, border protection, and domestic security and law enforcement agencies.

In his memoir, Turnbull has a chapter titled ‘Matters of trust: reforming intelligence and home affairs’ that offers a dusting of policy intent and much discussion of the politics and personalities involved. For Turnbull, the ‘trust’ issue was as much about his cabinet colleagues as rearranging the security guardians. Despite the ‘horrified’ reaction of the agencies moving into the mega-portfolio, Turnbull writes, and the political danger of giving Peter Dutton ‘a position of enormous responsibility’ as the first minister, Home Affairs was born.

The policy purpose was set out in Turnbull’s announcement:

The new Home Affairs portfolio will be similar to the Home Office of the United Kingdom: a central department providing strategic planning, coordination and other support to a ‘federation’ of independent security and law enforcement agencies including the Australian Security Intelligence Organisation, the Australian Federal Police, the Australian Border Force and the Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission. These arrangements will preserve the operational focus and strengths of frontline agencies engaged in the fight against terrorism, organised crime and other domestic threats.

The bureaucracy was then given 12 months to put Home Affairs together.

This was a blank canvas with many tints on the palette, Bergin and Derek Woolner thought, and the picture in prospect looked much like the department of homeland security they’d long advocated. A senior member of cabinet would now give 100% of their time to the domestic aspects of national security. The reorganisation of all those functions into a single portfolio—a ‘federation’ of border and security agencies—was long overdue, Bergin and Woolner wrote, but:

The difficulty will be developing the structure and governance arrangements for the Home Affairs portfolio: in particular, improving the response to terrorism that Prime Minister Turnbull thinks isn’t adequately provided by current ‘ad hoc and incremental adjustments’ to our national security arrangements.

By contrast, Peter Jennings welcomed Home Affairs with faint praise and firm damns:

The most important point to make about the government’s proposed Home Affairs portfolio is that these new arrangements can be made to work. They will not harm our counterterrorism performance and could improve Australia’s underwhelming efforts to protect against foreign interference and strengthen the security of critical infrastructure. But … it’s surprising that so little groundwork had been done to justify the need for change or to say how it was going to be done.

Coyne commented that ‘the creation of the portfolio will expose difficult-to-fix cultural and philosophical differences between agencies that have, to date, been ameliorated by the goodwill and leadership of individuals’.

One of the authors of the intelligence review, Michael L’Estrange, did a series of video interviews with ASPI on the intelligence community, the impact of fundamental changes in the international system, extremism with global reach, and the security consequences of accelerating technological change. The director-general of intelligence as the new czar who would need a ‘light touch’ to deal with the ‘federated structure’ of the community and its expansion to embrace the collectors and analysts, cops and lawyers, spooks and spies, cyber nerds and cyber warriors, diplomats and accountants, mappers and managers.

L’Estrange said Home Affairs wasn’t part of the review’s recommendations, but that it followed the review’s logic. If Home Affairs were still just an idea, he noted, the Canberra arguments would be intense. But Home Affairs was a government decision that had been made, and the new department must be made to happen.

Building a new maritime surveillance network across the Indian Ocean

The Indian Ocean is an increasingly contested strategic environment. A growing Chinese naval presence raises the prospect that Beijing may seek to challenge US naval dominance, potentially sparking a competitive naval arms race in the region. This would be of huge concern to Australia, forcing us to divert limited defence resources from other priority areas in the Indo-Pacific. Australia and its partners need to consider how to best leverage their strategic advantages to deter or limit China’s naval ambitions in the Indian Ocean.

One of the biggest advantages of Australia and its Indian Ocean partners, and one of China’s biggest vulnerabilities, is in maritime domain awareness. The ability of even large vessels to effectively disappear in the vastness of the Indian Ocean puts maritime domain awareness at a premium. If you can find a naval adversary and they can’t find your ships, the odds are definitely in your favour.

The Chinese navy already has significant disadvantages in the Indian Ocean, operating with limited logistical support far from home ports that are accessible only by transiting the narrow straits through Southeast Asia, where they can be easily located and tracked. China also lacks a comprehensive maritime picture of even significant parts of the Indian Ocean (although it is working to plug that gap, including through the use of satellites and other new technologies).

Individually, Australia and partners such as the United States, India and France already have significant capabilities, including maritime patrol aircraft and uncrewed aerial vehicles, and facilities that, if combined in a collaborative network, would allow comprehensive maritime surveillance of much of the Indian Ocean. The level of maritime domain awareness that could be achieved through such a network would make any Chinese naval presence highly vulnerable in a conflict.

Such a collaborative network would require information sharing, as well as collaboration in use of facilities to support maritime air surveillance. Crucially, adequate surveillance coverage of the Indian Ocean by maritime patrol aircraft would depend on access to air staging points and facilities across the region.

The US and its allies already have arrangements to provide access and logistical support in each other’s facilities, including the US bases at Diego Garcia and in the Persian Gulf. But India, with its growing fleet of Boeing P-8I maritime patrol aircraft and staging points around the region, is an essential partner in building a comprehensive regional network.

Over the past several years, India has reached mutual logistics support agreements with the US and France. The signing of an Australia–India Mutual Logistics Support Arrangement in 2020 represented a big step in building a web of agreements, opening the possibility of mutual use of facilities throughout the region. But the Australia–India piece is yet to be put into practice.

India undertakes surveillance of much of the northern Indian Ocean with P-8Is based at INS Rajali, near Chennai, and INS Hansa in Goa, as well as airfields in the Andaman and Nicobar Islands. Indian P-8s are increasingly also using facilities of regional partners such as Seychelles, Mauritius and French Reunion in the western Indian Ocean. It is anticipated that Indian P-8s will soon also be able to operate from the new Indian-built airfield on Mauritius’s Agalega island near the northern end of the Mozambique Channel.

Australia has its own strengths in the eastern Indian Ocean. Since at least the 1980s, the Royal Australian Air Force has undertaken aerial surveillance of the country’s northwest approaches and the Malacca Strait/Bay of Bengal as part of Operation Gateway.

The RAAF’s use of P-8A maritime patrol aircraft now provides an opportunity for collaboration with India in sharing of facilities and logistics across the region. Both countries are becoming more confident working together following Exercise AUSINDEX 2019, which saw RAAF and Indian Navy P-8s cooperating in anti-submarine warfare exercises in the Bay of Bengal, as well as the Quad exercises off Guam earlier this year.

Australia has several facilities in the eastern Indian Ocean that could substantially extend the range of India’s operations. There is an existing offer by Australia for Indian P-8s to use Australian facilities at Darwin and potentially also the Learmonth and Curtin air bases in Western Australia. There has been discussion of potential Indian use of the airfield on Australia’s Cocos Island, and an agreement was reached in February for India to place a temporary satellite tracking station there. But until the runway on Cocos is strengthened and widened (currently scheduled for 2023), it won’t be suitable for P-8 operations.

If Indian Navy operations from Australian facilities were normalised, there might also be opportunities for the RAAF to extend the area of cooperation throughout the Bay of Bengal and further afield into the western Indian Ocean. In particular, the ability for the RAAF to stage out of Indian bases in Tamil Nadu and/or Goa would help extend Australia’s reach in the central and western Indian Ocean. US Navy P-8s have already conducted operations from these Indian bases, providing opportunities for combined cooperation among the three countries.

Port Blair in India’s Andaman Islands is another potential staging point. Foreign militaries in the past were rarely given approval to use those facilities, but in October 2020 a US Navy P-8 aircraft was permitted to refuel in Port Blair for the first time. While the facility could deliver additional operational flexibility for Australian P-8s, given Australia’s access to Butterworth in Malaysia, the use of facilities on the Indian mainland would be more advantageous.

All these facilities could be considered as part of a new network of air staging points and facilities around the Indian Ocean potentially available to Australia, India, the US and other partners. This would support a collaborative maritime surveillance system that, potentially, could help deter a damaging naval arms race in the region.

Granting visas to Australia’s Afghan allies would speak volumes about us

The current debate in Australia about visas for Afghans who worked with Australian forces poses questions about the sort of people we are.

Australia has historically veered between kindness to strangers and insularity tinged with meanness of spirit.

This is the country which, until half a century ago, confined immigration almost wholly to whites; which has a pathological fear of the arrival of boats crowded with refugees; which declined in 1975 to evacuate local employees from its Phnom Penh and Saigon embassies; and which with Covid-19 has been more obsessive than any nation about control of its borders—even those within Australia.

It is also the country that opened up to displaced persons after World War II; that was one of four countries that took the bulk of refugees from Vietnam in the years after 1975; that after the Tiananmen Square massacre in 1989 allowed 42,000 Chinese to remain in Australia; and that gave Indonesia $1 billion when a tsunami bludgeoned it in 2004.

The government is taking flak for its rigidity in approaching the Afghan visa issue.

To be fair, current circumstances in Afghanistan are not, as alleged by some, on par with the collapse of South Vietnam in 1975.

Over recent years, we have taken a number of our former Afghan employees and other Afghans threatened by the Taliban. And, according to Foreign Minister Marise Payne, we have taken 230 former employees in the past month.

Besides, it is not yet a given that all or most of Afghanistan will fall to the Taliban.

But it soon might.

An aspect of the Vietnam analogy that is truly worrying is that when the North Vietnamese Army began its offensive in the Central Highlands of South Vietnam on 10 March 1975, few understood the degree to which panic is infectious or anticipated the speed with which South Vietnamese morale would collapse.

The North Vietnamese Army captured Saigon on 30 April.

An aspect of ministerial and official comments on the Afghan visa issue is the propensity to take refuge in the bureaucratic niceties of immigration. These include whether an employee identified with Australia worked directly for us or for a subcontractor, and the importance of ‘strict’ health and character checks.

As former prime minister John Howard suggested last week, this is not the time for legalisms.

There are going to be people otherwise eligible for entry who may be sick. We can treat them. As far as ‘character’ is concerned, war zones produce a motley crew. Give them the benefit of the doubt. And police checks in Afghanistan? Well really!

Some of the best examples of statecraft are decisions made by leaders comfortable in their skins who are prepared to go beyond conventional policy responses or bureaucratic diktat. Bob Hawke showed this capacity after Tiananmen Square. So did Howard after the tsunami.

Moreover, when a prime minister puts political weight behind an issue, things can get done very quickly.

In 1999, Howard decided to accord temporary refuge to groups of thousands of both East Timorese and Kosovars. The decisions were implemented in two or three weeks.

There are also broader issues involved here. The Americans went into Afghanistan—with Australia and NATO behind them—for a plethora of reasons emerging from the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001. Part of these had to do with American and Western security and the need for a visible signal that the US was not to be challenged—above all on its own turf.

Another argument was about values. Putting aside the usual hype about ‘freedom’ that accompanies Western military ventures, the Americans and the rest of us were genuine in advocating the merits of our ideals and our systems.

These perspectives took on added salience not only with developments in the Middle East and western Asia, but also against a background of authoritarianism in Russia, a shift to the right in parts of Europe, and an increasingly aggressive China.

If indeed the outcome in Afghanistan is as bad as the runes suggest, the adverse consequences for the reputation of the US, NATO and the West will be severe. The photographs of an abandoned Bagram airbase already say a lot. If Taliban flags again fly over Kabul, they will testify to another lost American war.

Respect for America will thus be vulnerable to the sort of erosion that occurred for the decade after Vietnam. More recently, that respect suffered body blows during the reign of Donald Trump. Western authority as a whole will diminish with it.

These are much larger issues than the question of whether Australia should be big-hearted towards our Afghan friends or should hide behind the arcane ramparts of the Department of Home Affairs.

But this choice is far from irrelevant to bigger things. We are a part of alliances and other international and regional groupings claiming a set of values that further the principles of liberalism. Against the backdrop of an Afghanistan in which the West is seen to have failed, we must practise the values that we preach if we are to retain an element of credibility.

It is time to be generous again—and quickly.

Australia needs to protect both civil liberties and national security

As the 20th anniversary of the 9/11 attacks approaches, Australians have seen their civil liberties and their community cohesion increasingly securitised and viewed as secondary to the need to prevent violence.

Despite our efforts to promote unity and to deny the world’s divisive cultural, political and ideological conflicts fertile ground to spawn hatred in Australia, old and new divisions remain deeply rooted in our multicultural society. Dealing with the Covid-19 pandemic threatens to further fracture and fragment our understanding of civil liberties and national security and how to protect them both.

Good intentions, major investment and considerable thought have been given to both liberties and the national security landscape, but Australia must do more to safeguard those freedoms while providing robust national security responses to threats.

Generations of Australians have come of age during the war on terror with little choice but to accept Australia’s role in overseas conflicts. The erosion of civil liberties in the name of security is normalised for most. We all want to be safe.

Overseas conflicts and threats have impacted our domestic security in ways that were previously unimaginable for most Australians. The world is increasingly unpredictable and subject to the actions of powerful non-state actors, rogue states, a resurgent Russia and an assertive China. Good intentions and optimism can’t spin this reality, but let’s take a closer look at what Australia is working with here.

We are witnessing a trade and economic tug of war with China while the Chinese Communist Party intensifies the mass surveillance and internment of Uyghurs and other Muslim minorities in Xinjiang.

As the last Australian troops returned from Afghanistan, schoolgirls were murdered in a Kabul bombing and Afghan civilians who helped Australia were targeted by the Taliban.

Adherents to right-wing ideologies continue to push the boundaries of ‘free speech’, finding a path between advocating political violence and expressing a political opinion which is protected in our constitution.

The past decade has given birth to extraordinary changes in Australia’s national security landscape. False battle lines are drawn with binary choices between national security and civil liberties and, more recently, trade and national security.

While acknowledging that Indigenous deaths in custody in Australia must be addressed, Prime Minister Scott Morrison said of a Black Lives Matter march that Australians should not be ‘importing the things that are happening overseas to Australia’.

Issues such as black deaths in custody, the indefinite detention of refugees, the Palestinian and Israeli conflict, and the political awareness and participation of young people are not being imported to Australia—they are already here. Recently, at least 10,000 people marched in Sydney to support Palestine, and Hezbollah flags were flying.

The pandemic has further fragmented our idea of nationhood and what Australia offers its citizens.  Covid-19 has had a disproportionate impact on vulnerable communities and people from low socioeconomic backgrounds.

Young people have faced disruptions to their education and restrictions on their movements, domestically and internationally, while their job prospects have withered away. They have seen protestors prosecuted under public health orders and Australian citizens stranded overseas.

Balancing civil liberties and national security has always been a delicate task—and it’s even more so in a pandemic.

Covid-19 has given rise to extraordinary emergency powers that would previously have been unacceptable to Australians.

Many will see the government’s investment of $1.9 billion in law enforcement and intelligence agencies as a means to protect and safeguard citizens while protecting the freedoms that make Australia a democratic and pluralistic state.

But in late 2019, in a report by international civil rights organisations, Australia was quietly downgraded from an ‘open’ democracy to a ‘narrowed’ one, placing us on a par with Ghana, Botswana and the United States.

Before the Covid-19 crisis, trust in our civic institutions and governments was at an all-time low. There has been some improvement in trust over the past year in response to the government’s handling of the pandemic. Arguably, improved trust based on Covid-19 success will be fragile and sensitive to changes in performance. Furthermore, improvements in community trust in government were not universal. Marginalised communities often bear, or at least perceive that they bear, the brunt of national security, law enforcement and intelligence policies. Among these communities, trust in the government to protect basic rights and freedoms is not nearly as strong. We remain one of the few democracies without a bill of rights.

Australia is already conducting secret trials behind closed doors and allowing law enforcement raids on journalists’ homes and on our national broadcaster.

In this tumultuous environment, many pockets of individuals, families, groups and communities in Australia feel disengaged from mainstream Australia because of their geopolitical, generational, religious and political beliefs and values. It’s likely that many feel that their voices and perspectives are not listened to or prioritised because of their differences from mainstream Australia. Disengagement from political, community and civic institutions across the political and religious spectrums is increasingly seen as a legitimate act of rebellion and protest rather than an abrogation of a citizen’s obligations towards their country.

While not everyone who experiences diverse challenges and dislocation becomes susceptible to extremist ideologies, most of those who believe in these ideologies are influenced by such inequality.

Covid-19 has demonstrated that our domestic security and civil liberties framework at home is not immune from what happens overseas. Nor, in a globalised world, can we ignore the interconnectedness of social justice issues.

The bifurcation of ‘local’ and ‘overseas’ issues undermines community cohesion and civil liberties at home, but that’s not an excuse for the securitisation of either our freedoms or cohesion. The alignment of community cohesion with counterterrorism in this context is ironic.

The danger is that we won’t be any safer in another two decades unless we start to address the weaknesses in our responses to threats to both national security and civil liberties and to truly understand the interconnectedness of these issues, especially in the context of Covid-19.

Security and civil liberties have a symbiotic relationship that collectively contributes to Australia’s social cohesion. It seems that after two decades it’s time for government to work with Australians to map out the red line between security and civil liberties.

The gold standard for such an effort is a bill of rights. Of course, developing an Australian bill of rights would likely take several years. In the interim, the government needs to find mechanisms that give a voice to those who feel marginalised. These efforts need to meaningfully ensure that marginalised individuals, groups and communities have the sense that they are being listened to, even if the messages or demands can’t be met. A good starting point could be separating the government’s functions relating to promoting social cohesion and countering violent extremism from its law enforcement, intelligence and national security agencies.

Robert Menzies, Australia and the Antarctic Treaty

Sixty years ago this month, the first Antarctic Treaty Consultative Meeting was held in Canberra. It ran from 10 to 24 July 1961 and was attended by representatives from the 12 Antarctic claimant states: Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Chile, France, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, South Africa, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, the United Kingdom and the United States.

The opening speech was given by the Australian prime minister, Robert Menzies. It marked a significant milestone in Australian foreign policy and in international affairs more broadly. It also marked the beginning of longstanding Australian political bipartisanship on major Antarctic issues—the Antarctic Treaty enabling legislation was passed unanimously by both Houses of parliament.

Australia, at first a cautious participant in the negotiations that led to the signing of the Antarctic Treaty in Washington in 1959, was influential in shaping the final text. Australia’s minister for external affairs, R.G. Casey, played a key part in convincing the USSR to accept that the treaty protected the Soviets’ interests as much as it did those of the Antarctic claimant states. The treaty entered into force in 1961 and its membership has since expanded beyond the original 12 parties to include 54 nations.

Menzies referred specifically to Casey’s role in the treaty negotiations—‘Lord Casey … played a most active part in the negotiation of this Treaty’—and noted that Casey was at the time ‘in the Soviet Union having a look at the Polar Institute at Leningrad’.

The treaty made Antarctica a non-militarised zone, banned military manoeuvres and prohibited nuclear-weapons testing. It declared that the Antarctic treaty area (all the globe below 60 degrees south) was to be used for peaceful purposes only.

Menzies’ speech reflected not only the core tenets of the treaty, but also Australia’s strategic Antarctic interests.

Outlining Australia’s historical connections and proximity to the Antarctic, Menzies said:

We, of course, are a country very close to the Antarctic. We have, over a number of years, had great interests in it. We have had the pleasure of being associated with some notable work of exploration in that part of the world …

So, we have not only a sense of neighbourhood about the Antarctic; we also have, over many years, a deep and practical interest in it.

Menzies then went on to speak of the geopolitical importance of the treaty and the current meeting:

To-day there are twelve nations represented here—four of them … ‘nuclear powers’. This, I think, is tremendously significant, because the Treaty itself—and the whole spirit in which it was conceived—have concentrated round three major principles which we would do well to bear in mind. The first of these is that the region is not to be regarded as a region in which preparations for war or conflict can be engaged in. It would not, perhaps, be grammatically accurate to say that it is demilitarized, because it has never been militarized; but it is to be non-militarized …

The second thing about it is the emphasis that it places upon co-operation … [H]ere in the Antarctic, we are going to have, more and more as a result of this association between us, co-operation in scientific research … for the benefit of mankind all over the world.

The third thing is that under the Treaty we have agreed to set aside the argument about territorial claims. Nobody abandons his own. We have made territorial claims in the Antarctic—quite expansive ones. I dare say that there are nations represented here to-day who would not agree with some of our claims … [W]hen this Treaty was being negotiated it was agreed not to abandon claims but to put on one side the argument about them.

In addressing these three issues, in the language of his day, Menzies articulated the foundations of Australia’s enduring Antarctic strategic interests:

  • Antarctica should be kept free of international conflict, war and aggression.
  • Antarctica should be place of international collaboration in science for all of humankind.
  • Australia has not abandoned its Antarctic territorial claim, but has agreed along with all other Antarctic Treaty parties that differences of view can be and are accommodated within the treaty.

In the depths of the Cold War it’s remarkable that the treaty was successfully negotiated, and more remarkable still that it has endured without major discord or conflict for 60 years.

For Australia, the Antarctic represents a strategic zone of peace to our south, and it has immeasurable value just for that fact alone. But we know, too, that Antarctica is the engine room of the global climate system, and Antarctic science is critical for our understanding of the future of our planet.

For these reasons alone, it is in Australia’s national interest to keep the Antarctic free of conflict and strife. As ASPI senior fellow Anthony Bergin and I have argued, while it’s important to understand the actions and motives of other players, it’s just as important to invest every effort to retain the norms and modes of the Antarctic Treaty System, and ensure its strength and survival.

To do this we need to invest in the tools of both hard and soft diplomacy—hard diplomacy to counter belligerent behaviours and insidious reinterpretation of the fundamentals of the Antarctic Treaty System, and soft diplomacy such as collaboration in Antarctic science and logistics as the foundations of peaceful international cooperation in the Antarctic region.

Reprising Menzies’ speech is a good reminder to all of where Australia’s Antarctic strategic investments should be directed.

The Antarctic Treaty System turns 60

The Antarctic Treaty entered into force in 1961 with 12 participating countries. Sixty years later, 54 countries are signatories to the treaty and the various related instruments that comprise the Antarctic Treaty System. Will the ATS mark another 60 years in 2081? Well, it depends.

Legal eagles will point to the complex requirements and processes for ‘exiting’ the treaty. Environmental scientists are racing to better understand how climate change will shape Antarctica by 2081, and strategic scholars expect great-power competition to rewrite the rules of engagement for the resource-rich and unclaimed continent. Discussion about the future of the ATS is far too caught up in the potential for the system to fail. Instead, the focus should be on the need to recognise and grasp the coercive elements of Antarctic cooperation and the entrenched nature of grey-zone activities on the continent.

Upholding the ATS continues be in Australia’s national interest. It delivers a great return on investment—a whopping big claim shelved into perpetuity and no military conflict on the doorstep. But conflict is underway in Antarctica; indeed, grey-zone activity is a hallmark of the continent. And not only does the ATS facilitate grey-zone threats, but Australia’s national security settings are failing to navigate them.

Grey-zone activities are actions taken by state or non-state actors that are coercive, undesired and even undermining, but that fall short of war. Strategic competition today is facilitated by new technologies and non-traditional security threats, which supports normalisation of grey-zone activities.

Antarctica, shelved as ‘siloed’ from strategic competition elsewhere and ‘protected’ by the ATS, is an environment in which grey-zone campaigns thrive. Examples include dual-use technology that can be applied in both scientific and military contexts, and Russian fishing vessels spoofing their locations to signal that they’re not in protected Antarctic waters. (Of course, one could argue that marine protected areas are an extension of some claimants’ territorial ambitions as well—a charge often levelled at Australia.)

Subversion, deception and sophisticated interpretations of international legal norms in Antarctica are all becoming hallmarks of the ATS. We tend to laud cooperation between nations in Antarctica, mainly because the ATS remains standing. However, this cooperation can be weaponised to frustrate the consensus nature of the ATS and the long-term protectionist foundations of the treaty. This grey-zone element of the ATS is a wicked problem of sorts. Actions beneath the threshold of war don’t breach the agreed rules in Antarctica and are undertaken by liberal democratic states as much as by autocratic revisionist ones.

The ATS facilitates grey-zone activity because the contours of peacetime and wartime, and the conceptions of security threats and acts that constitute militarisation, are different today than they were 60 years ago. And they will be different again 60 years from now. The current ATS business-as-usual approach is perhaps more of a worry than a breakdown in the system entirely. The collapse of the ATS would at least see Canberra craft resolute responses and act on them (after an awkward discussion with Washington, which doesn’t recognize Australia’s Antarctic Territory).

I see three possible avenues for actively protecting national interests in Antarctica. First, we could strengthen the ATS. That might involve inserting new rules of engagement, clarifying permissible and off-limits activities in terms that are relevant to the 2020s, or putting some teeth into ATS enforcement mechanisms. The second avenue involves relaxing the ATS. Parties would agree to disagree but would build tangible rules of engagement (such as resource-extraction caps) or establish regulatory bodies that carry a hard stick. A final option would be to change the system entirely and push for the elusive UN world park status for Antarctica. In not considering these strategic alternatives, and in not taking leadership in the future history of Antarctica, Canberra might be faced with a ‘might versus right’ scenario in 2081.

To get the ATS to 2081, a lot of domestic policy work needs to be done. The Australian government has already put out some signals that suggest a slight shift in strategic conceptions of Antarctica. For instance, the 2013 defence white paper declared: ‘There is no credible risk of Australia’s national interests in the Southern Ocean and the Australian Antarctic Territory being challenged in ways that might require substantial military responses over the next few decades’. In the 2016 defence white paper, that became: ‘The Australian Antarctic Territory faces no credible risk of being challenged in such a way that requires a substantial military response for at least the next few decades.’

Significantly, the 2016 statement clarified that a military response to protect our Antarctic interests was now on the cards. No doubt policymakers will be focusing on the sad state of our Antarctic and Southern Ocean defence capabilities. With no assets (we rely on the French to conduct much of our search-and-rescue responsibilities in the Southern Ocean) or adequate sustainment plans, it would be a short battle.

Immediate policy work should focus on standardising Australia’s national interests in the region. Geographically, policymakers have made this an even harder task; defence white papers and last year’s defence strategic update prioritise the northeast Asian sector of our region. Our Indo-Pacific strategy also appears to miss the Southern Ocean and Antarctica, despite it being a linkage between the two theatres and a key component of US Indo-Pacific Command’s strategic command. We also need to communicate our national strategic interests in Antarctica, and clearly articulate how the maintenance and functionality of the ATS delivers on these interests.

While the 2016 Australian Antarctic strategy and 20 year action plan underscores our interest in supporting a strong ATS and maintaining freedom from strategic and political confrontation by preserving sovereignty over the Australian Antarctic Territory, it doesn’t set out a clear strategy. Policy frames our ideal course of action and outlines our interests. But strategy is more about deliberate actions that employ all political, military, diplomatic and economic tools to advance national interests. A good strategy will be efficiently shaped by the international system in responding to shifts when they occur, whether tomorrow or in 2081.

For now, Australian Antarctic policy appears to be stuck in the romantic age of conquest. In contrast, the strategy of another enthusiastic Antarctic player, Russia, is first and foremost about ensuring national security, facilitating economic development and enhancing Russian identity. Of course, it’s worth noting that these ends for Moscow can be secured by holding up the ATS, not undermining it.

An absence of conflict doesn’t signal an absence of coercive strategies in Antarctica. Missing the elements of coercion and thinking of cooperation as a static concept put stakeholders at risk of strategic complacency. Supporting the ATS serves collective national interests, but these are not necessarily conciliary.

It’s not all doom and gloom; the ATS might yet celebrate another 60 years. But to get to 2081, the treaty and self-appointed leadership states like Australia must accept that the maintenance of the ATS will embolden grey-zone activities. Whether these activities serve to undermine the system this year or in 2048 or 2081, at the very least we must acknowledge that the ATS is a low-cost, high-reward solution that enables and legitimises Chinese and Russian access to and presence on one of the world’s most strategic continents.

Antarctica can be both home to a functioning ATS and a sphere of great-power politics in which grey zone activities proliferate. Australia needs a real strategy to compete. Maybe then we will celebrate another 60 years.

Young Australians can help shape security policies

Australia confronts a new and compounding set of security challenges. Traditional modes of geopolitics are giving way to sharper styles of statecraft, whether in the form of economic coercion, cyber espionage, disinformation or the weaponisation of aid and infrastructure.

All the while, climate change is stress-testing political systems, in some cases to breaking point. Together, these dynamics amount to a paradigm shift for security planners. Many governments are only starting to grapple with the new reality.

Unsurprisingly, young people do not have a seat at the table deciding our future. And yet, we’re the only generation that will live through the arc of strategic change and full ramifications of policies put in place today. If things go wrong, we will have to pick up the pieces.

Beyond being unjust, our absence from the table is a missed opportunity. As a cohort, we benefit from a unique historical perspective. As digital natives, we have learnt to navigate a hyper-connected world, not one separated by walls or blocs.

Many of us were born after the 9/11 attacks and spent our childhoods under the shadow of terrorism, not nuclear war. And we have witnessed the waning of our US ally, in a story punctuated by recessions, populism and now the pandemic. For all these reasons, our priorities are different. This gives us a fresh lens through which to understand current security challenges and propose novel solutions.

Our work is founded on the conviction that young Australians represent an untapped resource when it comes to national security. Our mission, then, is to mobilise their perspectives.

Many young leaders are already thinking creatively about emerging challenges. We want to elevate their voices in the debate. Other young Australians are brimming with ideas but have never thought of national security as a space that includes them. Our hope is to inspire their participation in the broadening security community, to bring to bear their diverse perspectives and skillsets in solving our nation’s next set of challenges.

To achieve this mission, we are running the Youth National Security Strategy. The initiative will assemble 42 of the nation’s brightest young thinkers to produce a national security strategy for Australia.

Why is this needed? Our current approach is no longer fit for purpose. Australia has typically planned its security through the prism of defence white papers but today’s threats no longer fit squarely in the box of ‘defence’. Whether it’s climate change or Covid-19, the challenges that increasingly unsettle Australia’s security spill over into every aspect of our society. Young people understand this but the policy establishment is yet to shift towards a more holistic national security frame.

Via the strategy document they will co-author, the Youth National Security Strategy will give emerging leaders the opportunity to begin shaping this new approach.

The initiative will produce more than a document. It will culminate in a week-long symposium at the Australian National University in December. This will allow the strategy’s co-authors to test their ideas and build relationships with leading academics, industry figures and policymakers in the national security space. Travel and accommodation will be fully funded.

Ultimately, the strategy promises to sharpen the thinking, skills and networks of a cohort of emerging leaders in national security. Crucially, it will also break ground in bringing a diverse and unheard set of voices and ideas to the security sector.

Applications are now open to be one of the 42 co-authors of this nationally significant document. We are searching across the nation for emerging leaders who want to contribute to this debate. Whether you are a student or in the workforce; a climate scientist, defence strategist or a health specialist; regionally or city-based; we want you. If you are interested in applying or know someone who would be, visit or share our website, which will lay out everything you need to know about how to get involved.

ASPI’s decades: Thinking about the Department of Defence

ASPI celebrates its 20th anniversary this year. This series looks at ASPI’s work since its creation in August 2001.

Created to both know and kick the Department of Defence, ASPI pursues this part of its mission with gusto.

Sharp analysis starts with an understanding of the magnitude of Defence’s job. To be useful, contestability requires a clear-eyed assessment of the nature of the contest and the players.

When a Defence management review was launched in 2007, Mark Thomson wrote that more fixes were needed in central management and leadership, while offering a sympathetic description of the task:

Defence management is of a scale and complexity unparalleled in Australia below that of the state and federal governments themselves. Not only is Defence one of the largest employers in the country—comparable with the Coles and Woolworths retail chains—but it maintains a diverse range of technologically sophisticated military equipment valued at more than $32 billion. Defence is also the country’s largest single land owner with more than 30,000 buildings spread across the length and breadth of the continent. In addition, Defence undertakes complex operations at short notice ranging from disaster relief through to peacekeeping and conventional war-fighting. No other entity in Australia has to deal with the diversity and complexity of missions allocated to Defence.

The complexity reflected the importance of what had to be delivered. Prime Minister John Howard told an ASPI conference in 2007: ‘I recently remarked to the Defence leadership group that the ADF’s current operational tempo is greater than at any time since the Vietnam war, but also that the complexity and global character of the security challenges we face make them even more serious.’

Concurrent operations were being conducted in Iraq, Afghanistan, Timor-Leste and Solomon Islands, and the ADF had recently completed shorter missions to Fiji and Tonga. Thomson posed the question: Are our defence forces overstretched? Had we reached the point where the scale and diversity of ADF deployments were no longer sustainable?

As always, Thomson went and analysed the numbers. He noted the burden was far from shared evenly, with some parts of the ADF called upon more often than others to deploy in a rolling program of six-month tours.

The operational tempo, though, needed to be seen in the context of an ADF that was hard-working even in peacetime: a small force maintaining a large range of high-tech military capabilities. There’d been no discernible increase to the rate of separations from the ADF compared with historical norms. The operational burden was commensurate with historical precedents post–World War II and was far less than that currently faced by the US and Britain. Thomson’s conclusion: ‘[W]hile the ADF is busy and under some pressure, it is not yet overstretched.’

With the election of the Rudd government in 2007 and its 2009 defence white paper, Labor placed its stamp on defence and strategic policy. ASPI produced a set of papers to explain what it meant for defence policy and what it said about the habits of the Department of Defence.

Rod Lyon was struck by how much ‘uncertainty’ was built into the white paper’s portrayal of the future international security environment, writing: ‘The paper frequently depicts multiple “futures”. Moreover, the paper’s authors often provide more than one judgment on key issues, generally at the price of confusion and contradiction.’

On the world view of Defence, Lyon offered the shrewd assessment of a thinker with long experience as a Canberra practitioner: ‘Australian defence planners remain realists: they trust power and military hardware as the principal means of securing Australia’s interests close to its own coastline, but advocate rules-based order and institutions further away.’

Andrew Davies said that, despite media reporting of new efforts in ‘Australia’s military build-up’, most of the initiatives were based on existing plans and capabilities.

Looking out twenty years at the mooted ADF of 2030, we find that it will be a lot like today’s force with half a dozen extra submarines. And today’s force is itself very similar to that of twenty years ago. Indeed, give or take an aircraft carrier and a few battalions, we can trace the essential shape of the ADF still further back. So this White Paper in many ways perpetuates the force structure that’s been in place since the Menzies Government went shopping in the 1960s. This strongly hints that the strategic discussions in White Papers over the years have been less closely linked to the development of our forces than is purported to be the case. Governments and White Papers come and go, but the ADF marches on.

The strategic argument of the white paper, Davies wrote, ‘could be paraphrased as “the rise of China may upset the power structure we’re very comfortable with, and we don’t want that”’. The force structure Australia wanted to have by 2030 indicated that ‘we’ve chosen, at least in principle, to side with the US—or, at the very least, to retain the option to do so’.

In 2013, a study of Australia’s regional defence diplomacy said old criticisms still applied: a lack of financial information management and clear and public articulation of the goals and objectives of defence cooperation. Defence’s emphasis had shifted from aid to working with allies and partners to promote a secure region, as Sam Bateman, Anthony Bergin and Hayley Channer wrote:

Changes in the power relativities in the region are profound and have major implications for defence engagement. As regional defence forces expand and modernise and we lose our technological advantage, engagement becomes more about strategic partnerships and less about aid and assistance. This requires a significant change of mindset. We need to think differently about how we engage in the region and better understand what is meant by ‘strategic partnership’.

The Abbott Coalition government tackled the tangles of Defence with the 2015 First principles review. An ASPI Strategic Insights paper, with 10 contributors, called the report ‘the most significant review of the defence establishment since the 1973 re-organisation led by Sir Arthur Tange’.

The review recommended a radical streamlining of decision-making, cutting senior management roles, slashing the number of committees, and abolishing the Defence Materiel Organisation to subsume the semi-autonomous organisation into Defence’s central structure.

Allan Behm wrote that the review highlighted critical organisational imperatives: simplify processes to emphasise decision-making as the core function of the Defence leadership; rebalance accountability and responsibility by cutting the number of committees; get internal alignment right—‘a problem that has frustrated chiefs of the defence force and secretaries for the past two decades’; acknowledge that behavioural change drive cultural change—‘an issue on which gender considerations have a direct impact’; recognise the fundamental need for trust between the defence minister and the defence organisation—‘the ever-changing procession of secretaries has generated a civilian organisation that lacks capacity, cohesion and consistency’.

Paddy Gourley harrumphed that beneath a welter of cliché and bamboozling modern management mumbo jumbo in the review, much sound advice lurked.

To the question posed by the review of why Defence had been unable to change itself, Gourley answered that ‘reform’ had been largely outsourced to dozens of reviews, which confused and distracted managers. Too many people at senior levels with narrow divisions of responsibility and the associated need to consult had coagulated management and restricted action.

Reform had to be pushed by leaders at the top, Gourley wrote, and that led to the defence ministers: ‘Few have taken a strong interest in the proper workings of the organisation. Indeed, a number have succumbed to the insidious notion that they are “customers” of Defence. They aren’t, but when they pretend to be, management stasis is usually just around the corner.’

Michael Clifford wrote that Defence, like all large organisations, needed a good pruning from time to time, and the last one was in 1997 with the Defence efficiency review.

Clifford, too, argued that government and ministers were not blameless. The growth in top-line staff numbers had all been agreed by government to meet operational needs, or in response to previous reviews ordered by government:

Successful reform is led and driven by the Minister—not just through media conferences and press releases. Defence is at its best when the Minister of the day regularly engages with the Department and mutual respect can be developed. While they may prefer to, Defence Ministers can’t stand back and point fingers—they need to get their hands dirty. Even if this may result occasionally in some political mud sticking.

Australia needs to pick up the pace on innovation

Now more than ever Australia needs to be innovative, and our science and technology base is the key to driving national innovation.

While our Covid-19 experience has reminded decision-makers to value and trust expert scientific advice, it’s still not an automatic response. Coupled with the devasting impacts on universities of pursuing overseas research investment and full fee-paying international students, the university sector is in a risky position.

Earlier this year, the head of Universities Australia, Deborah Terry, spoke on the value of Australia’s higher education sector in fostering Australian research and innovation. Professor Terry referenced Australia’s ranking in the World Intellectual Property Organization’s 2020 Global Innovation Index. The results were surprisingly underwhelming and signal a need for a rethink of how Australia supports innovation and the value we place on our higher education and research sectors.

The index ranked Australia just 23rd out of 133 countries for overall innovation and 6th in our region behind Singapore, South Korea, Hong Kong, China and Japan. We ranked higher in innovation inputs (13th), driven by factors like our internationally recognised tertiary education sector and relatively open and stable political, regulatory and business environments. However, our ranking was considerably lower in innovation outputs (31st), which includes the creation of knowledge, technology, and creative goods and services involved in translating research and development efforts into commercial outcomes.

In short, Australia excels in the ‘R’ of ‘R&D’ and falls short in the ‘D’—but that’s nothing new.

Over the years, a plethora of Australian government strategies, policies and task forces have targeted innovation. Yet Australia’s spending on research and development as a percentage of GDP has declined year on year since 2008—falling to just 1.79% in 2017, compared to the OECD average of 2.48%. The fact that Australia’s innovation problem has persisted suggests that there are more complicated, systemic barriers to innovation stemming from a historical, cultural and philosophical aversion to investing in ourselves.

Despite Australian inventions like the stump-jump plough, Hills Hoist, black-box flight recorder, cochlear implant and Wi-Fi, we’ve never been a country economically geared for innovation. Investment in potentially great ideas has always taken second place to our preference for exporting our natural resources.

Australia originally focused on exporting agricultural commodities like wool, wheat and butter, then expanded into minerals and fuels such as coal, iron ore and natural gas, changing major trading partners from the UK, to Japan, to the US, and now China. While professional services, particularly international education, have gained a place among our top exports, Australia has relied heavily on the benefits of a major and unanticipated early 2000s mining boom.

Sadly, cultural cringe continues to be alive and well in Australia. Michael Lucas of Engineers Australia says, ‘Although a lot of robotics technology is developed in Australia, local businesses tend to buy their products overseas. They want to see someone else use them first.’ Ask any budding innovative entrepreneur and they’re likely to agree.

The changes to university research commercialisation and the purpose of higher education institutions have been decades in the making. Universities’ heavy reliance on international student enrolments for funding has created an unsustainable dependency and international research partnerships have raised concerns of foreign interference. International funding for Australian university research has grown exponentially since 2000, and in 2018 most universities relied on discretionary income spending to fill research funding gaps. Much of this income comes from international students; some estimate that 27% of total research expenditure, or about $3.3 billion, relies on profits from international students.

Developing an innovative idea from concept to practical application requires sponsorship, investment and time, which Australian companies like SPEE3D know well. SPEE3D has developed a world-leading 3D printer that can rapidly manufacture components in a variety of different metals and alloys. Last year the Northern Territory government invested $2.75 million for SPEE3D to establish its research and development headquarters in Darwin. Without this kind of forward thinking and funding from governments, the fruits of research and development by universities and companies are destined to head overseas.

There are two challenges to address. The first is understanding that a robust science and research base underpins innovation and that a diminished university sector limits Australia’s opportunity to lead in pure and applied science and research.

The second is that, without whole-of nation investment in innovation—whether by Australian governments, businesses, or both—entrepreneurs who are unable to self-fund will seek funding overseas.

Australia has a long history of gaining a competitive advantage in new and innovative technologies and an equally long history of forcing researchers and innovators to look overseas for funding. Covid-19 has highlighted areas in which we could have handled things better and in which we shouldn’t repeat the errors of the past. Innovation is one of those areas.

Australia closes embassy after misplaced participation in Afghanistan conflict

Australia has closed its Afghanistan embassy before its military involvement ends as part of the United States–Taliban peace deal for the withdrawal of all foreign troops by 11 September 2021.

While that’s not unexpected, Australia is the first country in the Western alliance to end its on-ground representation and it has set the scene for other US allies, especially smaller ones, to do the same. This runs contrary to the assurances given to Kabul by Washington and its allies that their support will continue after troops withdraw.

Canberra’s actions, although with a caveat that it may reopen its embassy in the future, make sense when its own position is considered. It could not guarantee the security of the embassy which was not protected by Australian troops but by a security firm at a very high cost. Australia will now have non-residential representation through one of its embassies in the region.

The closure of Australia’s Afghanistan venture raises questions about its goal and effectiveness from the start. Was it to support its United States ally in fighting such terrorist groups as al-Qaeda and its Taliban harbourers, who facilitated the 9/11 attacks on the US? Or was it to help the people of Afghanistan rebuild their lives and their country?

It was probably a bit of both, but with emphasis on the anti-terrorism aspect as the main official justification. Australia’s diplomatic mission was there primarily to help Afghanistan with its reconstruction and to observe and report on the country’s changing circumstances while liaising with the Kabul government and other missions.

However, Australian troops were there to fight the Taliban and their affiliates as part of a wider US-led mission. Their task was to contribute to processes of stabilisation and securitisation that were essential for Australia to carry out its non-military activities in Afghanistan.

In general, Australia’s diplomatic and military operations made a positive contribution, especially to the reconstruction and security of the province of Uruzgan, albeit at high human and financial costs, which have now proven to have brought short-term gains. Australia lost 41 soldiers, with 260 injured, some crippled for life. Many among the 35,000 Australian troops who rotated through Afghanistan have suffered from post-traumatic stress disorder, causing dozens to commit suicide over the years. The financial cost came to around $10 billion.

Yet, most of the good work that Australian diggers and aid workers performed in Uruzgan is now in ruins, as the Taliban have regained control over much of the province.

The closure of the embassy ahead of total military withdrawal releases Australia from a very costly and unwinnable war. Yet, being the first country to disentangle itself from Afghanistan, basically cutting and running, is not a very good look.

And the closure is bound to hamper the investigation of the circumstances surrounding 39 Afghan civilians alleged to have been killed by Australian special forces and the justice that needs to be delivered in this respect. The initial justification of fighting terrorism rings hollow.

The Taliban, who have become peace partners of the Americans and their allies, have not severed their close relations with al-Qaeda. That’s been confirmed by Western intelligence services and the United Nations. The two groups are now well placed to play a critical role in determining the future of Afghanistan.

US President Joe Biden’s administration has said that it will be able to combat any terrorist actions out of Afghanistan from bases in the region. But this will not be as effective as having forces on the ground to conduct counterterrorist operations. For their part, the Taliban have warned Afghanistan’s neighbouring states against allowing the US to have bases on their soil for such a purpose.

A better option would have been for Australia to keep even one mid-level diplomat who could operate from the US embassy, which will be protected by a residual American force. This would have been at least symbolically pertinent to its on-going commitment to the people of Afghanistan.

It is now time for Canberra to take stock of Australia’s involvement in Afghanistan and to question whether it pursued the right strategy—and if it ever had an appropriate end game. Its participation in the conflict demonstrates that following the US into every war without a strategic necessity of its own to Australia can be futile.