Tag Archive for: Australia

Australia–Japan defence relations: managing expectations

Assistant Minister for Defence, The Honourable Stuart Robert MP (2nd left), Commodore Training, Commodore Michael Rothwell AM RAN (left) and Dignitaries meet with the Japanese Maritime Self Defence Force Commander Japan Training Squadron, Rear Admiral Hideki Yuasa, for lunch onboard ship JS Kashima at Fleet Base East, Sydney.Recently, I attended the Griffith Asia Institute’s fourth annual Australia-Japan Dialogue in Tokyo. Not surprisingly, a central theme of the workshop was whether Australia–Japan security and defence relations are on the cusp of a transformation, given that 2014 proved to be an active year for the relationship. Foremost was the signing of a new defence agreement during Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s visit in July which opened the door for potential cooperation on Australia’s next submarine. Prime Minister Tony Abbott also called Japan a ‘strong ally’—leading to a fierce debate (including here and here) about the pros and cons of getting closer to Japan.

In both Canberra and Tokyo expectations are high about the strength of the future defence relationship. But it’s not self-evident that the momentum can be sustained. After all, the contemporary history of the defence relationship is one of highs followed by relative tranquillity. And there are at least three issues that will require close expectation management to consolidate the progress made. Read more

Australia as a ‘top 20’ power: balance, interests and responsibilities

FishIn wrapping up the Strategist debate on Australia as a ‘top 20’ defence power, I’d like to thank the other contributors for a fascinating exchange. Peter Jennings’ initial contribution drew a thoughtful response from Andrew Carr, and the series unfolded from there. Contributions from John Blaxland, Nic Stuart, Peter Dean, and Andrew Smith subsequently helped to illuminate the shape of the battlefield. Looking back over the contributions, the core difference that emerges is the one between regionalists and globalists. Carr, Blaxland and Dean are regionalists. Jennings and I are globalists. I think Smith’s a globalist by virtue of alliance. And Stuart’s got a foot in both camps.

I want to use this final post to talk about three things that seem to me to underpin the debate: the notion of ‘balance’ in our global and regional imperatives; Australia’s strategic interests; and the concept of international responsibility. Rolled together those factors become something like an exploration of Australian strategic identity.

Several contributors mentioned the need for Australia to strike a balance between its global and regional roles. I think that’s an important point. But I don’t think past Defence White Papers have been good at setting the balance between the near and the far in Australian strategic thinking. The layered concentric-circles model is structurally biased, because the circles lead ever downhill, emphasising a supposed declining interest in the more distant ‘issues of strategic concern’—to use Peter Dean’s phrase—and a strategic prioritisation on ‘fundamental issues’ close to home. The concentric-circles model doesn’t help us strike a balance; indeed, it doesn’t even pretend to be interested in the concept of balance. If we want to do some balancing between near and far, then we need a different way to think about Australian strategy.

Read more

Jokowi’s waves of opportunity

Following a successful boarding exercise, HMAS Maryborough's Petty Officer Bosun Michael Cunnington, is assisted by an Indonesian sailor at the completion of a boarding exercise with Indonesian Warship KRI Wiratno during the first Australian-Indonesian Coordinated Patrol.Today ASPI has released Waves of opportunity: Enhancing Australia–Indonesia maritime security cooperation. The full report can be found here [PDF].

At the recent East Asia Summit (EAS), Indonesia’s President Joko ‘Jokowi’ Widodo spoke about Indonesia’s new maritime doctrine, the ‘World Maritime Axis’ concept. But what does that mean? Some criticise the term for its negative connotations, as in ‘axis powers’, or ‘axis of evil’. Perhaps it’s more apt to describe it as a ‘pivot’, as the US ‘rebalance’ used to be termed.

The World Maritime Axis highlights that ‘the sea is becoming more important for our future’, wrote Jokowi. Indonesia is increasingly aware of its central location along the sea lanes that connect two strategic oceans, the Indian and Pacific. Hence, Jakarta has warmly embraced the term ‘Indo-Pacific’ not only as diplomatic jargon [PDF], but as strategic comprehension.

But the important shift isn’t just maritime. Rather, it’s how Indonesia views its surrounding geography. Indonesia has traditionally looked north and east toward the Pacific, for economic, diplomatic and strategic reasons in its engagements with ASEAN and the major powers, including the US. The World Maritime Axis aims to give greater attention to the less-understood, but no less important, Indian Ocean in Jakarta’s mental map [PDF].

Read more

Extended nuclear assurance: another thread in the tapestry

Another thread in the tapestry

Last year the government released a range of documents relating to Australia’s approach to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). The documents, dating between 1945 and 1974, were edited by Wayne Reynolds and David Lee and published as part of DFAT’s Historical Series—a series that has previously done good work in relation to Timor-Leste, ANZUS and other topics. An electronic version of the latest text is available here.

I’ve been reading the manuscript off and on over the last couple of weeks, and the work certainly deserves greater public attention than it has so far attracted. Yes, the documents are heavily redacted—the phrase ‘matter omitted’ appears with depressing frequency. Still, what’s included is comparatively frank—and revealing. Moreover, given the scarcity of material released from Defence files across this period, some glimmers of policy thinking are better than none. Read more

Australia, Fiji and Pacific regionalism

Mechanics and carFiji’s declared starting point for talking to Australia about the future of Pacific regionalism is that Australia should leave the Pacific Islands Forum. Australia’s undeclared position—made clear by its actions—is that the Forum is more important than Fiji, but of course Canberra would rather have both.

Such are the tensions to be expected between the South Pacific’s chief status quo power, Australia, and its active and agitated revisionist power, Fiji. As previously noted, Australia and Fiji have set out to shift from duel to dance. The duel will still influence the dance. And in a bizarre way, the scars of the duel might actually aid the discussion Suva and Canberra have pledged to lead on regional architecture.

In the clash between status quo thesis and revisionist antithesis, any true synthesis would be a fascinating if unlikely result. Suva and Canberra may not expect any agreement on regional architecture, but the effort can go in interesting directions. Australia and Fiji have been hacking at each other so hard for so long, it’ll be hard for them just to go back to old diplomatic bromides. Read more

Time for a grown-up discussion about national strategy

Bee2I’m grateful to Andrew Carr, Rod Lyon and John Blaxland for taking up the debate about Australia’s role as a ‘top 20’ global power. It’s obvious we disagree on some fundamental points about designing the best strategy to keep Australia secure in a more risky and competitive world. There are echoes of this discussion around Julia Gillard’s optimistic Asian Century White Paper; Kevin Rudd’s apparently increasingly pessimistic view of regional security; the ‘China choice’ confection; and Tony Abbott’s instinctive globalism—notwithstanding his pre-election ‘more Jakarta and less Geneva’ slogan. Discomforting and novel as it may be, Australia urgently needs to have a grown-up discussion about strategy.

As my first blog post made clear, I take the view that Australia should reshape its defence and foreign policy around promoting a set of broadly-defined global interests. This would force a break with a regional policy priority that has shaped strategic thinking since the end of the Vietnam War. That focus started quite narrowly—in the 1980s defining Australian interests around the ‘inner arc’ of the Indonesian archipelago. Driven outward by crises, our definition of what constitutes our essential region has progressively widened to include Timor and the Pacific, a wider swathe of Southeast Asia and now—for some at least—the Indian Ocean and North Asia. Read more

Medical countermeasures: co-ordinated regional capability for global impact

Lance Cpl. Dylan Shuler, 22nd Marine Expeditionary Unit chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear defense specialist and native of Bell Buckle, Tenn., helps Lance Cpl. Jarrod Roper, 22nd MEU CBRN specialist and native of Villa Rica, Ga., don his level "B" protective suit as the Marines prepare to search a subway for casualties and an unknown chemical or biological agent during hazardous material response training

Not having appropriate medical countermeasures (MCMs) to chemical, biological and radiological (CBR) threats, emerging infectious diseases or pandemics is the biggest risk to our health, economy and security. The current Ebola crisis demonstrates that in situations where there’s a limited amount of specific MCMs, Australia’s allies—traditionally, one of our main sources—won’t necessarily guarantee supply. It’s a timely reminder that Australia must be proactive in this area. A cornerstone for any response to a national health emergency will be ensuring our nation’s first responders (military, healthcare and emergency personnel) have an appropriate armamentarium to care for those affected.

MCMs include products such as therapeutics, vaccines, diagnostics and personal protective equipment. But the development of such products is highly specialised and their deployment is complex. Further, in preparing for potential emerging threats in our region, Australia must also consider availability of MCMs for a number of endemic diseases which aren’t considered a global MCM development priority. Read more

Getting to yes for China’s Infrastructure Bank

Yes - ¥€$Australia, South Korea and Indonesia used their status to play coy on joining China’s new development bank. Canberra, Seoul and Jakarta felt they could stand back and await further blandishment while 20 Asian nations joined China to sign up for the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank on October 24. But all the usual summitry scripts suggest the movement from coy ‘perhaps’ to ‘oh, yes’ starts today at Beijing’s APEC summit.

Indonesia is hinting it’ll be the first of the reluctant three to agree. It’d be quite a snub not to, given that President Xi Jinping announced the AIIB’s creation at Indonesia’s APEC talkfest last year. Getting to yes is a great way for Jokowi to start off with Xi.

The summit script says that Xi can then start to conjure personal chemistry to woo Australia’s PM and Korea’s President. Working together, Canberra and Seoul have demanded clarity and concessions from Beijing on governance, spending decisions, board structure and voting rights. Read more

Foreign aid, geopolitics and perverse incentives

Somaliland

It’s a fair bet that the Republic of Somaliland isn’t well known to most Australians. That’s a pity, because it’s certainly an instructive case. Born in a separatist struggle against Mogadishu, the little statelet has received nothing in the way of recognition from the international community, which means—for one thing—that it can’t receive foreign aid. Yet, according to the World Bank, the little Republic has ‘made admirable progress in improving its infrastructure to foster trade’ as well as almost tripling the number of primary schools and increasing five-fold the number of universities on its territory. Neighbouring Somalia, which can get aid, is still ‘in sharp contrast, looking tense and dangerous’.

Is that actually a coincidence though? Some Australian charities have bemoaned stagnating aid budgets in the face of increased defence spending. They claim the Coalition is buying guns and bombs at the expense of the world’s poor. I’m all in favour of controlling defence spending, but that doesn’t mean I think the money saved should go on foreign aid. Because the evidence says it doesn’t work (see William Easterly’s exhaustive review of the economic research here), especially if donated for ‘strategic’ reasons. As with defence spending, the problem lies in the incentives. Read more

ASPI recommends ‘Pacific Crucible: war at sea in the Pacific 1941–42′

USS Lexington (CV-2), burning and sinking after her crew abandoned ship during the Battle of Coral Sea, 8 May 1942.

With ANZUS in the news (PDF) at the moment, this book is a good way to understand where it all started. In early 1942, America needed Australia’s location linking the Pacific and Indian Oceans as a base from which to project power into Southeast Asia. Australia, seriously unprepared for war, needed American combat power. The relationship later formalised as ANZUS was forged then.

I argued recently that our geography makes us a critical partner when American seapower is under challenge in the western Pacific. The degree to which that was true in WWII becomes abundantly clear in Ian Toll’s excellent book. Even before the fall of the Philippines, Singapore, Burma and what was then the Dutch East Indies—most or all were expected to be unable to withstand the Japanese assault—Admiral Ernest King, the newly appointed Commander in Chief United States Fleet, identified two critical elements of allied strategy: Read more