Tag Archive for: Resilience

National resilience: lessons for Australian policy from international experience

The strategic circumstances that Australia contemplates over the coming decades present multiple, cascading and concurrent crises. Ensuring a safe and secure Australia, able to withstand the inevitable shocks that we’ll face into the future, will require a more comprehensive approach to strategy than we’ve adopted over the past seven decades. We can’t rely on the sureties of the past. The institutions, policies and architectures that have supported the nation to manage such crises in our history are no longer fit for purpose.

The report highlights lessons drawn from international responses to crisis, to assist policymakers build better responses to the interdependent and hyperconnected challenges that nations face. The report brings together the disciplines of disaster management, defence strategy and national security to examine what an integrated national approach to resilience looks like, and how national resilience thinking can help Australia build more effective and more efficient responses to crisis and change.

The report concludes that now is the time to commence action to deliver a national resilience framework for Australia. Collective, collaborative action, enabled by governments, built on the capability and capacity of Australian industry and the community, and aimed at the goal of a resilient Australia, can ensure that we’re well placed to face the future with confidence.

The challenge of energy resilience in Australia: Strategic options for continuity of supply

The intent of this report is to examine approaches to ensuring Australia’s energy sources are resilient.

It discusses Australia’s energy continuity needs from a complex system-of-systems perspective and details several systemic vulnerabilities that contribute to potential gaps in the resilience of our energy supply.

The report provides options for addressing the surety of energy supply, reforming energy supply through the electricity grid, addressing evolving transport energy demand, and future-proofing our communities.

Steps to fulfilling these strategic options are examined in several recommendations addressing whole-of-government and whole-of-nation gaps in energy policy.

Agenda for Change 2016: Strategic choices for the next government

The defence of Australia’s interests is a core business of federal governments. Regardless of who wins the election on July 2, the incoming government will have to grapple with a wide range of security issues. This report provides a range of perspectives on selected defence and national security issues, as well as a number of policy recommendations.

Contributors include Kim Beazley, Peter Jennings, Graeme Dobell, Shiro Armstrong, Andrew Davies, Tobias Feakin, Malcolm Davis, Rod Lyon, Mark Thomson, Jacinta Carroll, Paul Barnes, John Coyne, David Connery, Anthony Bergin, Lisa Sharland, Christopher Cowan, James Mugg, Simon Norton, Cesar Alvarez, Jessica Woodall, Zoe Hawkins, Liam Nevill, Dione Hodgson, David Lang, Amelia Long and Lachlan Wilson.

ASPI produced a similar brief before the 2013 election. There are some enduring challenges, such as cybersecurity, terrorism and an uncertain global economic outlook. Natural disasters are a constant feature of life on the Pacific and Indian Ocean rim.

But there are also challenges that didn’t seem so acute only three years ago such as recent events in the South China Sea, North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, and ISIS as a military threat and an exporter of global terrorism.

The incumbent for the next term of government will have to deal with these issues.

Launch Video

Bolstering national disaster resilience: What can be done?

This report outlines the goals of ASPI’s Risk and Resilience Program. It introduces several broad areas to be covered and measures to strengthen mitigation, response and recovery options spanning the community, state and federal spheres. The program will contribute to our long-term thinking on how best to prepare for and recover from disasters.

Strategic Insights 54 – Keeping the home fires burning: Australia’s energy security

In this paper, Andrew Davies and Edward Mortimer look at Australia’s energy security. Energy is the lifeblood of modern economies. The correlation between energy consumption and prosperity is strong—and that’s unlikely to change. Those simple observations have some profound implications.

Australia, like all modern economies, needs an assured supply of energy to function effectively. As a net exporter of energy, Australia is well placed in most respects. But we are still reliant on external sources of oil. The first part of this report examines Australia’s vulnerability to interruptions in the oil supply over the next few years.

Over the next couple of decades, externalities will reshape the world market for energy. In particular, the sources of oil will be increasingly concentrated in the hands of OPEC producers. At the same time, greatly increased consumption of energy by the developing economies of India and China will increasingly concentrate consumption in non-OECD countries. So the mechanisms for managing world energy markets—such as the International Energy Agency—will increasingly reflect a historic view of energy production and consumption. The second part of the paper looks at mechanisms by which Australia and other developed economies can adjust to the new realities.

The last part of the paper looks at the potential for renewable energy to meet a substantial proportion of Australian and global energy requirements. The conclusion is that current technologies are unlikely to meet demand.

King-hit: preparing for Australia’s disaster future

This paper makes recommendations as to how Australia can be better prepared for and recover from future natural disasters.

Suggestions include:

  • measuring and reporting on community resilience;
  • providing disaster funds on the condition that new structures are made to be more resilient than the structures they replace;
  • asking the  Productivity Commission to investigate if the Commonwealth has got value from the billions spent on disaster response and recovery;
  • declaring an annual national disaster prevention day;
  • developing national hazard mapping and a national sea level rise policy statement;
  • introducing  durability ratings for buildings;
  • providing information to individual insurance policy holders on the risks associated with their property;
  • developing a national policy on retreating from hazardous areas to reduce people’s exposure to severe risks; and;
  • starting a national communications campaign to encourage individual and community preparedness.

Critical foundations: Australia’s infrastructure and national resilience

This paper argues that neglecting the critical foundations that have made Australian society prosperous  isn’t a sound investment in national security resilience. A stronger strategic framework for business to work with governments on delivering such projects is needed.

Business needs a clear understanding of what projects will emerge over the next five to ten years in order to focus its resources.

We need to develop clear ways in which a project’s benefits can be expressed so the community can understand what’s proposed and measure progress.  And the cost benefit analysis has to include social benefits as well as economic benefits.

Crumbling infrastructure, whether it be clogged ports or congested roads, will imperil our safety and security, quality of life, and economic competitiveness.

Strategic Insights 39 – Taking a punch: Building a more resilient Australia

The paper, authored by David Templeman and Anthony Bergin, examines how Australia can bounce back from all hazards, not just terrorism.

The paper recommends a number of specific measures to build a more resilient Australia.

Tag Archive for: Resilience

Red tape that tears us apart: regulation fragments Indo-Pacific cyber resilience

The fragmentation of cyber regulation in the Indo-Pacific is not just inconvenient; it is a strategic vulnerability.

In recent years, governments across the Indo-Pacific, including Australia, have moved to reform their regulatory frameworks for cyber resilience. Though well-intentioned, inadequate coordination with regional partners and stakeholder consultations have created a situation of regulatory fragmentation—the existence of multiple regulatory frameworks covering the same subject matter—within and among Indo-Pacific jurisdictions.

This inconsistency hinders our ability to collaboratively tackle and deter cyber threats, essentially fragmenting the cyber resilience of the Indo-Pacific.

Regulatory fragmentation threatens regional security for three key reasons.

Firstly, it impedes technical efficiency. While we tend to think of cyberspace as borderless, its composite parts are designed, deployed and maintained on the territory of states that enact their own laws and regulations. Factors such as threat perception, the organisation of the given state and its agencies, and regulatory culture shape these frameworks. The degree to which the state provides essential services and owns physical and digital infrastructure also influences framework development.

As governments introduce complex regulatory obligations for cyber resilience, most digital services providers and ICT manufacturers will have to divert resources from efforts that would otherwise enable them to prepare for and respond to threats more effectively and across jurisdictions. Ironically, this undermines the effectiveness of regulatory regimes for cyber resilience in the first place.

In addition, complex and confusing nation-specific requirements push regulatees to follow a checkbox approach to cyber resilience, rather than a holistic, risk-informed and agile one. Boards may prioritise meeting the bare minimum of regulatory requirements instead of maintaining a risk management posture commensurate with the rapidly evolving threat environment.

Secondly, regulatory fragmentation undermines innovation. Complex regulatory regimes—especially for government procurement and for critical infrastructure operators—can seriously undermine competition and innovation. Startups and smaller vendors (looking to sell to such entities) have to divert scarce resources away from research, development and innovation to fund compliance with a maze of obligations. This is especially problematic for small and medium enterprises in sectors reliant on innovation—such as cyber resilience and advanced manufacturing—as regulatory risk mitigation can deny these firms the ability to scale and expand into new markets.

Thirdly, regulatory fragmentation impedes trust in partnerships. A jurisdiction’s regulatory robustness in relation to cyber resilience is a key factor in determining the suitability of partners in sensitive policy domains.

For example, while Japan has taken steps to invest in its national cyber resilience, particularly after Chinese hackers compromised government networks, the United States has remained cautious about Japan’s ability to protect sensitive information. Through sections 1333 and 1334 of the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2025, the US Congress tasked the Departments of State and Defense with reporting on issues such as: the effectiveness of Japanese cyber policy reforms since 2014; Japanese procedures for protecting classified and sensitive information; and how Japan ‘might need to strengthen’ its own cyber resilience ‘in order to be a successful potential [AUKUS Pillar 2] partner’.

Collaboration requires trust. That trust hinges not just on the quality and harmonisation of regulatory frameworks; it also depends on whether they’re enforced and underpinned by a shared appreciation of the cyber threat environment, including in relation to state-sponsored actors looking to preposition themselves in critical infrastructure assets and steal intellectual property.

That trust also relies on a shared appreciation of the importance of removing unnecessary impediments to innovation, including the growth of allied and partner capability, and threat mitigation by stakeholders, which is itself contingent on shared political will.

After all, regulatory fragmentation is politically driven. Leaders, ministers, officials and regulators each seek to satisfy constituents at home and exert influence abroad over cyber policy. They may prefer to clean the cobwebs through visible operational reactions rather than kill the spider through holistic, long-term preparation.

Such political considerations may disregard commercial and technical realities when regulatory parameters are determined in the interests of digital sovereignty, including when it comes to (not) banning technology vendors.

Fixing this is a tall order but not impossible. Australia and its partners could consider establishing a baseline degree of regulatory harmonisation and reciprocity. This could include factors such as:

—Definitions of the subjects and objects of cyber regulation;

—Thresholds and deadlines for reporting breaches of cyber resilience to the state;

—Standards and controls that regulatees must implement, and outcomes they must achieve;

—Technology supply chain risk management requirements, including methods to assess whether procuring technology from certain vendors is too risky;

—Types of penalties for non-compliance; and

—Powers of the state to gather information or intervene in the operations of regulatees.

Allies and partners must better align their regulatory frameworks. Be it via multi-stakeholder collaboration or multilateral regulatory diplomacy, tackling regulatory fragmentation will make the Indo-Pacific more cyber-resilient.

Let us tear away the red tape that tears us apart.

Societal resilience is the best answer to Chinese warships

The Australian government has prioritised enhancing Australia’s national resilience for many years now, whether against natural disasters, economic coercion or hostile armed forces. However, the public and media response to the presence of Chinese naval vessels in the Tasman Sea over the past two weeks suggests that more work must be done to strengthen the resilience of Australian society.

Political leaders and senior officials have repeatedly stressed that ‘Australia faces the most complex and challenging strategic environment since the Second World War’, but recent commentary suggests that Australia as a society isn’t yet mentally adjusted to such circumstances.

While the public should be aware of China’s military signalling, and attempts to antagonise or even intimidate, we shouldn’t overreact.

Yes, these activities are unexpected. Yes, certain elements have been conducted unsafely and unprofessionally, notably the live fire drills which were carried out with extremely short notice and disrupted nearby civilian air traffic. Nevertheless, such activities are legal, relatively commonplace and likely to occur more frequently as China develops a more capable, expeditionary navy.

Taking the bait and choosing to be provoked only serves to justify Beijing’s common overreactions when non-Chinese ships operate legally in waters close to China.

Moreover, if Australian society—or, specifically, the voting public—regards activities such as sailing Chinese ships in our exclusive economic zone to be a threat, then the scope of government reaction is restricted: ministers may be under pressure to be more strident than they should be and react in ways that are not conducive to our long-term interests.

None of this excuses China’s blatantly aggressive acts, for example repeated hostile aircraft interceptions, endangering Australian aircraft and crews by releasing chaff or flares in front of them or using sonar against Navy divers. These are, and should be, condemned.

Denying China the headlines and propaganda victory it craves would clearly show how extreme Chinese measures have been.

Drawing on the Cold War experience, NATO naval vessels routinely shadowed Soviet warships in the North Atlantic, Mediterranean and Indian Oceans to monitor their behaviour and obtain intelligence. Similarly, we should expect Chinese intelligence-gathering vessels to lurk nearby large-scale training exercises such as Talisman Sabre, as they did in 2023.

In today’s context of widespread strategic competition, we should expect these kinds of activities to be just as commonplace and therefore try to inform and educate the public accordingly.

The threat posed by China is not going away. Nor are its naval and coast guard vessels, whose numbers are rapidly rising, and its global ambitions are growing.

While the political drama that these events may provide is undoubtedly tempting in the lead-up to the federal election due by May (a coincidence, or an attempt to sow discord?) it is shortsighted to seek partisan advantage from a scenario that will be repeated frequently for maybe decades to come. That merely encourages similar behaviour from the other side of politics when governments change.

The priority should instead be on building a more resilient society that is better equipped to respond to complex—and confronting—situations. Part of that is ensuring our society is better informed and less susceptible to propaganda, misinformation and disinformation, none of which is served by overreacting to routine, if unprofessional, naval activities.

Beyond rhetoric, an important dimension of building resilience is ensuring that the Australian Defence Force is suitably equipped to respond to such scenarios. It would give the public confidence that their armed forces are capable of monitoring and responding as required.

As other contributors have noted, the Australian navy’s capability shortfall must be addressed. China has proven adept at using maritime means to intimidate, destabilise and coerce its neighbours in Southeast Asia. We must be mindful, and prepared, in case these techniques are applied in our immediate region.

Should China establish a base nearby or pursue more regular deployments to Australia and the Pacific, ADF resources would rapidly become strained if the level of response expected to every Chinese navy transit matched the tone set by the current reporting.

Resilient societies and polities are those that know when to respond forcefully, and when to keep their powder dry. For the sake of navigating the long-term challenge of a regional environment defined by strategic competition, Australia needs to learn and apply this lesson quickly.

National resilience? Hardly. We’re unprepared for crises

Three landmark reports this year have laid bare an uncomfortable truth: Australia is dangerously unprepared for crises.

Each report brings distinct yet complementary insights:

The Glasser review into disaster governance arrangements found that resilience has no dedicated home at the Commonwealth level. Its seven key recommendations emphasise the need for stronger leadership, including an elevated role for National Cabinet in coordinating resilience initiatives and the introduction of an annual National Resilience Report to Parliament, with clear metrics and a strengthened focus on climate risk.

The Telecommunications Sector Resilience Profile, of which I was the lead author, shows weaknesses at the sector level, with the concept of resilience only at an early stage of integration into federal policies. The report established a framework of seven guiding principles supported by 34 specific capabilities. This framework provides both a roadmap for enhancement and a mechanism to track progress in strengthening telecommunications infrastructure.

And the Colvin review examined disaster funding mechanisms, warning that without immediate, evidence-based investment in risk reduction, Australia faced an unsustainable rise in disaster-related costs. Its 44 recommendations, underpinned by eight design principles, outlined a more focused Commonwealth role, including new accountability measures and annual reporting requirements.

These reports converge on fundamental gaps: we lack a shared vision of success, clear lines of responsibility and ways to measure improvement. Without addressing these basics, Australia’s crisis response will remain fragmented and reactive.

The telecommunications sector perfectly illustrates these challenges. Modern networks are engineering marvels working invisibly in our daily lives, until they fail, as we saw in the Optus outage last year.

The problem runs deeper than individual failures. Our research at ANU revealed severe gaps in how we manage the interplay between markets and government regulation. When crises hit, we discover these gaps the hard way.

For example, the dependency of telecommunications on energy providers is a key vulnerability. Telecommunications providers do not often have prior warning of plans by energy providers to de-energise or re-energise the electricity grid. The Royal Commission into Natural Disaster Arrangements recommended improved cooperation between the telecommunications and energy sectors after the 2019–20 Black Summer bushfires, however current efforts have not improved the relationship, industry insiders say.

More worrying still is our diminishing ability to learn from these failures. Australia’s cyber intelligence agency has seen a decline in incident reporting. Instead, businesses are putting legal protection over transparency and collective improvement. This creates a dangerous knowledge gap: how can we improve if we don’t know what’s going wrong?

Each disruption offers lessons, yet we lack a systematic way to capture insights, implement changes across sectors and hold government and industry accountable for improvement.

The Glasser review notes differing meanings of resilience. For remote communities, it may mean preserving major employers. For national security planners, it encompasses regional security, supply chain stability, cyber threats, natural disasters and terrorism. In telecommunications, resilience can mean, for example, ensuring businesses’ revenue or students’ access to online learning.

Differing interpretations of resilience can lead to institutional inertia. Various groups can claim their expectations aren’t being met while they wait for others to act. Resilience becomes both everyone’s responsibility and no one’s.

The telecommunications sector demonstrates the difficulty of making achievement of resilience actionable for industry. As each provider defines resilience based on its commercial interests, sector-wide efforts are often at cross-purposes.

The Telecommunications Sector Resilience Profile proposed a principles-based cyber governance framework based on the UN’s Principles for Resilient Infrastructure. This practical application of the UN’s principles could inform their use in other critical infrastructure sectors.

The Colvin review makes clear we’re still trying to solve tomorrow’s problems with yesterday’s funding models. Complex funding arrangements often fail those who need help most by creating a system in which success depends more on grant-writing expertise than need. While well-resourced organisations can navigate the bureaucratic maze, our most vulnerable communities—those facing language barriers, disability or geographic isolation—are left exposed.

The telecommunications sector perfectly illustrates this brewing crisis. Major carriers cannot justify skyrocketing infrastructure costs to meet growing data demands while revenue streams struggle to keep pace. This isn’t just a business problem; it’s a national security issue. When commercial imperatives clash with resilience requirements, short-term thinking often wins.

The last few years have forced faster crisis decision-making, but speed without strategy has left us lurching between emergencies. These three reports share a common message: breaking this cycle requires more than just response plans.

Effective crisis leadership demands clear objectives that guide priorities, robust systems that ensure dependable action, and shared measures of success. Building true resilience demands more than chasing spot fires—it demands transformative thinking.

The Achilles’ heel of a digital nation: Australia’s dependence on subsea cables

Australia’s digital sovereignty is at risk of disaster, held hostage by a network of vulnerable subsea cables. Our complacent reliance on these underwater lifelines is a reckless gamble with our economic, social and national security. While the government and telecommunications industry tout ongoing efforts to enhance cable security, their measures are mere stopgaps, inadequate to address the magnitude of the looming crisis.

We need more resilient cable designs, more distributed landing points, alternative communication paths and the best possible cybersecurity measures.

Australia’s digital economy is a juggernaut. It’s expanding rapidly and is central to the nation’s prosperity. In 2021, it contributed a staggering $167 billion, or nearly 8 percent, to gross domestic product. Those figures are projected to surge in coming years, with the government’s Digital Economy Strategy 2030 aiming to position Australia among the top 10 digital economies and societies globally. That ambition is underpinned by the expectation that the digital economy could grow to $315 billion a year over the next decade and create a quarter of a million new jobs in the four years to 2025.

However, this digital powerhouse rests on a precarious foundation: the network of subsea cables that carry 99 percent of Australia’s international internet traffic. The cables enable everything from e-commerce and online banking to telecommunications and cloud computing. A disruption to them would not only cripple businesses and essential services but also jeopardise Australia’s economic growth and global competitiveness.

The threats to subsea cables aren’t theoretical; they’re real and growing. Natural disasters such as earthquakes, tsunamis and underwater landslides pose a constant risk of disruption. However, the most alarming threat comes from human actors. State and non-state actors alike could exploit the vulnerability of subsea cables to achieve strategic objectives.

In an era of escalating geopolitical tensions and hybrid warfare, the weaponisation of subsea cables is increasingly likely. A hostile actor could sever Australia’s connections to the world, causing widespread panic, economic chaos and a severe blow to national morale. The threat of espionage also looms large, as foreign intelligence agencies could potentially tap into the cables to siphon off sensitive data and compromise Australia’s national security.

Recent incidents around the globe have underscored the vulnerability of subsea cables. In 2022, suspected sabotage of internet cables near Svalbard and the Shetland Islands raised alarms, as did the damage to the Baltic connector pipeline and two subsea cables by a Chinese-owned commercial ship. In February 2023, two submarine cables connecting Taiwan to the outlying island of Matsu were cut by Chinese civilian ships, probably intentionally. Those incidents, along with the alleged Houthi attack on Red Sea cables in 2023, serve as stark reminders that subsea infrastructure is increasingly becoming a target in the escalating tensions between nation-states.

The belief that Australia’s cable network has enough redundancy to withstand such threats is a dangerous misconception. While there are multiple cables connecting us to the world, they mostly converge at just a few landing points, creating single points of possible failure. Moreover, many of them follow similar routes, making them vulnerable to simultaneous disruption.

Australia’s primary international cable connection points are Sydney, Perth and the Sunshine Coast. While there are secondary landing points in other cities, such as Adelaide and Melbourne, they often link back to other Australian cities rather than go directly overseas. The concentration of landing points further amplifies the risk, as a single event could cripple multiple cables simultaneously.

Rapid advances in artificial intelligence and its integration into various sectors of the Australian economy further exacerbate the nation’s reliance on subsea cables. AI-powered technologies, such as machine learning, big-data analytics and autonomous systems, require vast amounts of data to be transmitted and processed, often across international borders. That increased data flow intensifies the demand for high-speed, reliable internet connectivity, making Australia even more dependent on its vulnerable subsea cable infrastructure.

Australia’s defence capabilities are also inextricably linked to its digital infrastructure. The Australian Defence Force relies on subsea cables for secure communication, intelligence sharing and the coordination of military operations. A disruption to this critical infrastructure would severely degrade the ADF’s situational awareness, command-and-control capabilities and ability to project force. In a conflict, the loss of subsea communication links could be catastrophic, potentially isolating Australia from our allies and hindering our ability to defend our borders.

Band-Aid improvements to cable security and resilience are no longer sufficient. Australia needs a paradigm shift in its approach to digital infrastructure. This requires a bold and comprehensive strategy that encompasses:

resilient cable design: investing in new cable technologies that are more resistant to physical damage and tampering, such as armoured cables and self-healing fibres;

distributed landing points: establishing a truly decentralised network of landing points across the country, ensuring that no single region can be isolated by a localised attack or natural disaster and reducing the risk of multiple cables being severed simultaneously;

alternative communication pathways: investing in and developing non-terrestrial communication alternatives such as satellite constellations, high-altitude platforms and ground stations to provide backup connectivity in the event of cable outages;

—cybersecurity fortification: implementing state-of-the-art cybersecurity measures to protect cable infrastructure from cyberattacks and espionage, including strengthening network monitoring, intrusion-detection systems and incident-response capabilities; and

international collaboration: strengthening partnerships with regional allies and like-minded nations to share intelligence, coordinate responses to threats and develop joint strategies for cable protection through joint exercises, information sharing and collaborative research on cable security technologies.

Australia can’t afford to procrastinate on this critical issue. The threats to our subsea cables are escalating, and the consequences of inaction are dire. By taking decisive action now, Australia can bolster its digital resilience, safeguard its national security and ensure its continued prosperity in an increasingly interconnected and contested world.

The time for complacency is over. The Achilles’ heel of our digital nation must be protected.

Rethinking Australia’s wartime maritime trade

Last week, ASPI released an important new report on Australian maritime trade. This is a critical subject, about which far too little is written. However, the report examines peacetime trade with the expectation that the experience can be directly translated to wartime. This assumption is problematic and has led to some questionable conclusions about the impact of a conflict on Australian maritime trade.

There are a number of very significant differences between maritime trade in peacetime and wartime that need to be factored into any calculations. The first of these is the difference between trade and supply. In a conflict, Australia would not need and would not have much of its peacetime trade. Instead, it would be focused on importing the minimum ‘necessary to keep the country running indefinitely to meet basic requirements’ and exporting key materials essential for Allied war economies.

The second point is that these flows of vital imports and exports would not necessarily come from, or go to, the same places as in peacetime. In the Second World War, Britain was forced to shift away from Middle Eastern oil, and instead rely upon supplies from the Americas. This was not a result of the absence of Middle Eastern supply, but instead was the product of the closure of the Mediterranean shipping route, and the inefficiency of deploying tanker tonnage around the Cape.

A similar pattern would be seen for Australia in the event of conflict today. South Korea is one of the largest suppliers of refined fuel for Australia. If there were a war in Northeast Asia this would stop – not only because of the difficulty of shipping it to Australia, but also because of the challenges for the Koreans to get raw crude, and because of the Korean government’s need to ensure its own energy security.

The report paints a different picture. It explores the example of the Second World War, suggesting that trade during the conflict ‘continued’ between Allied countries, noting that in 1942-43, Australian exports ‘were only slightly below pre-war levels, while imports had more than doubled’.

A closer examination of the statistics paints a very different picture. Exports to Britain halved between 1938-39 and 1942-43, while imports from the US increased by 544% over the same period. In terms of commodities, certain sectors that produced essential raw materials for Allied war industries—such as wool—boomed, while others suffered badly.

These patterns were shaped by the exigencies of war, mediated through Allied bureaucracy. The ‘world shipping crisis’ sparked by the war ensured that committees in London and Washington dictated what goods got shipped to and from Australia, and when. This was not business as usual, and we should not expect it to be in the future.

The combination of the shift from trade to supply, and the alterations in the sources of supply, will radically reshape the flows of shipping to Australia. The need to secure that supply will further shift the patterns away from a peacetime model—trade will not simply continue to run on established routes. The most effective way to protect trade is to ensure you avoid the enemy. It is for this reason that trade was so heavily rerouted through both world wars. Shipping is also a very precious commodity in wartime, and therefore if it is possible to source supplies from less dangerous alternatives, these will be used. Australian oil is likely to come from refineries in India or the Americas, not Asia.

Routes will also reflect Australia’s alliances. Many of the most important elements of supply for Australia in wartime will be military equipment, personnel, and the logistics and infrastructure to support them. This is most likely to come across the Pacific, not from Asia.

In the event of conflict, Australia’s most important connections will not be the shortest, or the most profitable, instead they will be those that are most defensible and tie the country to its key allies. It is for these reasons that, in wartime, Australia’s key strategic lifelines will not run north-south through the archipelago, but instead will run east-west across the vast expanses of the Pacific and Indian Oceans. This shift will be far more apparent than in previous wars because Australia’s leading peacetime trading partners are no longer the same as its key allies.

There are even greater issues with some of the other key findings of the report. One of the most surprising is the suggestion that trade is remarkably resilient to disruption, citing the experience of the Second World War. Here again, the lack of context makes these remarks problematic. During the Second World War, Allied maritime supply did prove resilient, although this often came at the cost of capacity, and shipping was the critical bottleneck in the Allied war effort. This resilience was not, however structural and instead was the product of a concerted effort by governments. Through the first half of the twentieth century, the Australian government deployed huge time and resources developing and implementing naval control of shipping and other measures for the protection of the merchant marine. These measures were driven by a deep understanding of the potential vulnerability of maritime supply.

That vulnerability is all too evident if one looks at German maritime supply in either world war, or Japan in 1944-45. Shipping is resilient if, and only if, you can provide a significant degree of sea control. As soon as that disappears, then the trade stops. When discussing trade protection, people routinely reference the Battle of the Atlantic, but they generally fail to appreciate the true nature of that campaign. As historians are at pains to point out, the primary protection for trade came not from Greyhound-style escorts, but from the British fleet, which guaranteed command of the sea. This reduced the Germans to mounting a campaign of ‘guerrilla warfare at sea’. The resilience of trade in the face of such a campaign is not surprising, nor does it bear any relation to what would happen if command of the sea was even contested, let alone lost.

One of the central, if unacknowledged, assumptions within all of the scenarios discussed in the report is that the ability of a US-led coalition to guarantee command of the sea outside the first island chain remains unchallenged. That is a very big assumption.

The report provides an excellent picture of Australian trade in peacetime, and the challenges that might be faced in a period of coercion. It does not, however, do what it claims to do, namely provide any basis for considering what might happen in wartime. Australian maritime supply will not just carry on flowing through the extremely vulnerable chokepoints to our north. Governments will need to control, ration, and make difficult strategic choices about how to best reroute shipping, and where to access critical supplies. Perhaps most important of all, there will be no maritime supply unless we have a naval force capable of providing the overarching protection for it.

War risks to Australian maritime trade

If push comes to shove between China and the United States, Australia’s international trade with Asia is at risk of becoming collateral damage. 

The sea routes through Indonesia and to Asia around the east of Papua New Guinea account for 90% of Australia’s sea-borne exports and 83% of its imports. 

Last year’s Defence Strategic Review identified the defence of trade routes as a priority. Australia was at little risk of invasion, but adversaries could exercise military coercion at a distance by targeting Australia’s trade, it said. 

A new ASPI Special Report, The trade routes vital to Australia’s economic security, identifies the narrow shipping channels through Indonesia as the most vulnerable choke point for Australia’s trade. They carry about two-thirds of Australia’s exports, including all its iron ore and most of the west-coast liquefied natural gas, while they are also the route for 40% of our imports. 

The Malacca Strait between Indonesia and Malaysia is the main route for shipping from the Indian Ocean trading with Asia. It carries about 80,000 ships a year. If it were blocked—and it’s only about 15 kilometres wide alongside Singapore—all that shipping would be rerouted around the south of Australia, travelling past the east of Papua New Guinea. 

The Malacca Strait is used by most container and vehicle ships coming to Australia from Europe, although since the attacks by Houthi militia in the Red Sea more are travelling around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope and directly across the Indian Ocean. 

The route to the east of Papua New Guinea is taken by most container ships coming to Australia from North Asia and also Australia’s coal ships supplying Asia. 

Once ships from Australia reach North Asia or pass through the Indonesian archipelago, they enter the busiest shipping lanes in the world. The ships carrying Australia’s bulk commodity exports are a significant presence: it’s estimated they account for 29% of global bulk shipping, however the 8 million containers handled each year at Australia’s ports are less than 1% of the global total. 

The report notes that while Australia’s trade would be seriously damaged by any blockage of the Indonesian shipping channels, so too would the trade of China. China depends on maritime imports for 80% of its iron ore, 70% of its oil and 35% of its protein. 

US strategic analysts have explored the option of a distant blockade of China’s maritime trade using the Malacca Strait to interdict commercial shipping. 

However, international trade has a proven resilience in the face of military disruption. While the Houthi attacks since October have halved the flow of ships through the Suez Canal, they have had little measurable effect on global trade flows. 

Ukraine is managing to ship high volumes of grain and other goods across the Black Sea in the face of Russian attacks by devising a route that hugs its coast and then the coasts of NATO members Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. It has been helped by the British government subsidising war-risk insurance. 

Military defence is important: Ukraine’s resumption of shipping through the Black Sea following the collapse of a UN-brokered grain-shipping deal with Russia has been helped by Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s navy. 

However, it is essentially the prospect of profit that keeps the merchant fleet moving. 

The availability of alternative sea-routes is one source of the resilience of trade: if one channel is blocked, there is usually another way around it. The provision of war-risk insurance is another. Ship owners and operators will weigh the cost of insurance against the expected profit from the trip. 

The competition between shipping lines is also important. The oil tanker business is hugely competitive: the top 30 companies control less than half the global capacity. The operators of a ship that turns down a cargo because the route is too risky can be sure that a competitor will pick it up. 

Bulk shipping is even more competitive, with the top 20 companies operating barely a quarter of the global fleet. Container shipping is a lot more concentrated, with the top five companies accounting for two-thirds of global capacity. 

Container ship operators were quick to stop using the Suez Canal after the Houthi attacks began, with traffic at the end of January down by two-thirds from a year earlier. The cost of the detour around Africa was passed on to customers. 

In the much more competitive oil tanker business, traffic was only down by 18%, while for bulk shipping the fall was only 6%, according to analysis by the UN Conference on Trade and Development. 

The ASPI report calls for the Australian government to review the security of Australia’s container shipping supply, noting that the country has the advanced world’s highest dependence on manufactured imports, most of which arrive by container. 

Australia is a high-cost route for the container lines, as it has relatively low volume, is not on the way to anywhere else, and up to half the containers that arrive in Australia full leave empty. 

There has been no official review of Australia’s shipping routes since one was conducted by the forerunner of the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics in 2007, which was based on data from 2001 to 2004. The direction of Australia’s trade has changed dramatically since then, and the ASPI report calls for the government to fund an update of the official report. 

The ASPI report also says the government should prepare contingency plans for supporting the provision of war-risk insurance to ships trading with Australia in a time of conflict. There should also be planning for emergency chartering of shipping. The provisions in the Defence Act for requisitioning shipping in war-time were drafted in 1903 in the wake of the Boer War and need to be updated.

War risks to Australian maritime trade

If push comes to shove between China and the United States, Australia’s international trade with Asia is at risk of becoming collateral damage. 

The sea routes through Indonesia and to Asia around the east of Papua New Guinea account for 90% of Australia’s sea-borne exports and 83% of its imports. 

Last year’s Defence Strategic Review identified the defence of trade routes as a priority. Australia was at little risk of invasion, but adversaries could exercise military coercion at a distance by targeting Australia’s trade, it said. 

A new ASPI Special Report, The trade routes vital to Australia’s economic security, identifies the narrow shipping channels through Indonesia as the most vulnerable choke point for Australia’s trade. They carry about two-thirds of Australia’s exports, including all its iron ore and most of the west-coast liquefied natural gas, while they are also the route for 40% of our imports. 

The Malacca Strait between Indonesia and Malaysia is the main route for shipping from the Indian Ocean trading with Asia. It carries about 80,000 ships a year. If it were blocked—and it’s only about 15 kilometres wide alongside Singapore—all that shipping would be rerouted around the south of Australia, travelling past the east of Papua New Guinea. 

The Malacca Strait is used by most container and vehicle ships coming to Australia from Europe, although since the attacks by Houthi militia in the Red Sea more are travelling around South Africa’s Cape of Good Hope and directly across the Indian Ocean. 

The route to the east of Papua New Guinea is taken by most container ships coming to Australia from North Asia and also Australia’s coal ships supplying Asia. 

Once ships from Australia reach North Asia or pass through the Indonesian archipelago, they enter the busiest shipping lanes in the world. The ships carrying Australia’s bulk commodity exports are a significant presence: it’s estimated they account for 29% of global bulk shipping, however the 8 million containers handled each year at Australia’s ports are less than 1% of the global total. 

The report notes that while Australia’s trade would be seriously damaged by any blockage of the Indonesian shipping channels, so too would the trade of China. China depends on maritime imports for 80% of its iron ore, 70% of its oil and 35% of its protein. 

US strategic analysts have explored the option of a distant blockade of China’s maritime trade using the Malacca Strait to interdict commercial shipping. 

However, international trade has a proven resilience in the face of military disruption. While the Houthi attacks since October have halved the flow of ships through the Suez Canal, they have had little measurable effect on global trade flows. 

Ukraine is managing to ship high volumes of grain and other goods across the Black Sea in the face of Russian attacks by devising a route that hugs its coast and then the coasts of NATO members Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey. It has been helped by the British government subsidising war-risk insurance. 

Military defence is important: Ukraine’s resumption of shipping through the Black Sea following the collapse of a UN-brokered grain-shipping deal with Russia has been helped by Ukrainian attacks on Russia’s navy. 

However, it is essentially the prospect of profit that keeps the merchant fleet moving. 

The availability of alternative sea-routes is one source of the resilience of trade: if one channel is blocked, there is usually another way around it. The provision of war-risk insurance is another. Ship owners and operators will weigh the cost of insurance against the expected profit from the trip. 

The competition between shipping lines is also important. The oil tanker business is hugely competitive: the top 30 companies control less than half the global capacity. The operators of a ship that turns down a cargo because the route is too risky can be sure that a competitor will pick it up. 

Bulk shipping is even more competitive, with the top 20 companies operating barely a quarter of the global fleet. Container shipping is a lot more concentrated, with the top five companies accounting for two-thirds of global capacity. 

Container ship operators were quick to stop using the Suez Canal after the Houthi attacks began, with traffic at the end of January down by two-thirds from a year earlier. The cost of the detour around Africa was passed on to customers. 

In the much more competitive oil tanker business, traffic was only down by 18%, while for bulk shipping the fall was only 6%, according to analysis by the UN Conference on Trade and Development. 

The ASPI report calls for the Australian government to review the security of Australia’s container shipping supply, noting that the country has the advanced world’s highest dependence on manufactured imports, most of which arrive by container. 

Australia is a high-cost route for the container lines, as it has relatively low volume, is not on the way to anywhere else, and up to half the containers that arrive in Australia full leave empty. 

There has been no official review of Australia’s shipping routes since one was conducted by the forerunner of the Bureau of Infrastructure and Transport Research Economics in 2007, which was based on data from 2001 to 2004. The direction of Australia’s trade has changed dramatically since then, and the ASPI report calls for the government to fund an update of the official report. 

The ASPI report also says the government should prepare contingency plans for supporting the provision of war-risk insurance to ships trading with Australia in a time of conflict. There should also be planning for emergency chartering of shipping. The provisions in the Defence Act for requisitioning shipping in war-time were drafted in 1903 in the wake of the Boer War and need to be updated.

Using critical technology to build democratic resilience

Machine-learning algorithms that process data might not immediately come to mind when we think about Covid-19, but they supercharged our ability to respond to a disruptive threat. Countries emerged from rolling lockdowns due, in part, to concurrent advancements in artificial intelligence and biotechnology that produced mRNA vaccines. As the Australian government rethinks and reviews its approach to critical technologies, whether policy is technology-centric, capability-centric or a combination of the two will be crucial for creating strategic effect.

Multiple factors affect innovation and strategic effect. Precise terms are important. The phrase ‘artificial intelligence’ has proliferated, but it’s more accurate to think in terms of developments in data science, cloud computing, machine learning, data protection and intelligent data capture.

The speed at which mRNA vaccines were deployed in 2020–21 creates the impression that innovation is all about rapidity. In part, it’s true: speed is key. But the story of Moderna’s version of the mRNA vaccine began decades ago. Despite successive failures, patent conflicts and sideways paths, the story looks linear. Long-term bets made by institutions such as the US Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency, and later by venture capital firms, look prophetic, not risky.

Across an entire portfolio of technologies, predicting what the impacts will be or which combination will come together is difficult. Governments can set a broad vision, but the vagaries of innovation can make us discount effort across research, financing, commercialisation, logistics, translation and communication and look for moments of lone genius, not collective endeavour.

The changing parameters of risk and security, particularly in relation to economic and geopolitical threats, mean we’re witnessing an evolving global consensus on innovation policy.

Countries are increasingly having to navigate harder choices in relation to industry priorities. Competition between great powers and the weaponisation of economic (and data) connectivity are inciting conflict over scarce resources. Parallel institutional structures that bifurcate the global economic system and systemic threats such as climate change are contributing to uncertainty. Assumptions about the stability of market access along with the security and diversity of supply have shifted.

Across the globe, several sovereign innovation funds have been announced this year alongside other government initiatives aiming to boost research and development outcomes. Australia’s version is the $15 billion National Reconstruction Fund; NATO will invest €1 billion in early-stage start-ups;  Japan’s ‘Moonshot’ research and development program promotes high-risk, high-impact projects. The Quad leaders have committed to convening a business and investment forum for networking with industry partners to expand capital.

These initiatives don’t just channel investments or provide opportunities to de-risk projects. They are, in theory, a means to ensure that research solves issues facing future society. A 1991 US report on critical technology put the challenge succinctly: if technology is critical, the question is, critical for what?

Without a strong sense of mission, we risk not working to solve challenges. Sectors characterised by the rise of platform business models and winner-takes-most dynamics dominate research and development. The centre of gravity of AI research has shifted from academia to industry. Many sectors, including defence industries and technology areas like cloud computing, are dominated by a handful of companies.

Market-led opportunities don’t necessarily correspond to social needs or consider negative long-term impacts, geopolitical dependencies or other ethical considerations. Setting algorithms loose to sell trinkets may oil the wheels of commerce, but if the net result is a floating mountain of plastic in the Pacific, then we must consider whether our notions usefully address criticality and for whom.

Government innovation can benefit from quick lead times in the commercial sector. Industry tends to favour monetising in the short term, cementing incumbency and creating higher barriers for new entrants. Governments need to have good policy frameworks that provide incentives for industry collaboration, including for small and medium-sized firms, that pulls in the same strategic direction.

Proliferation of technology is meant to drive competition, reduce costs and improve efficiency. These assumptions have shifted because of a deteriorating strategic context. The international playing field is skewed by actors playing by different rules and creating rules for themselves—often dishonestly and at times criminally. In the defence sector, the proliferation of defence-related technologies must balance goals such as strategic stability and non-proliferation to maintain a military edge while contributing to arms control.

Australia has a strong history of invention, including wi-fi, the Cochlear implant, the CPAP machine and the black-box flight recorder. The invention of wi-fi involved intense and protracted contestation over patents and technical standards. There are lessons here for Australia’s tech sector, which has been disengaged from standards-setting forums in which it could advance its market reach and contribute to the public interest internationally.

The stronger message now is that there’s a critical need to define sovereign technological missions and grand challenges, and to fund them appropriately.

Australia’s previous critical technology plan mentioned national security, economic prosperity and social cohesion. Those are worthy goals, but the plan offered only a vague reference point rather than a systematic sense of purpose.

Earlier this month, an indication of where the new government might be driving the national conversation about critical technology. Noting the persistence of systemic threats—cybersecurity, climate change, foreign interference—Home Affairs Minister Clare O’Neil indicated a way forward. The politicisation of security over the past 10 years, she noted, ‘didn’t make us any safer’. We have often taken a whack-a-mole approach to risk. In contrast, O’Neil emphasised building resilience. ‘Scalpels, not sledgehammers’, she said, need to be deployed to build democracy as ‘our biggest national asset’.

This is a step-change. Previously, our critical technology action plan emphasised social cohesion. Building democratic resilience will need more than rhetoric. This shift in mindset will need to filter through into program and policy. Technology can bring us together, but differences (of opinion, and in approaches to problems) allow democracies to build characteristics and capabilities to absorb, recover from and adapt to disruption.

In the meantime, Australian innovators are seizing opportunities. Initiatives such as the national medical countermeasures program delivered by DMTC Limited—a defence technology partner—are harnessing inputs from government, publicly funded research agencies, industry and academia. Their development of a novel pathogen-detection technology shows that our biotechnology capability and capacity are world-leading when mission, financing, expertise and capability pull in the same direction. Australia’s health security system will reap dividends in preparedness for future disease threats. Technologies identified as critical to Australia’s national security such as flow chemistry are also being developed.

We often chase the shiny and new. But we’ll need to think harder about democratic resilience and the fundamental role of critical technology in building capability across systems alongside its ability to address and adapt to cascading effects of system failure. As we strengthen our participation in global forums such as the Quad, Australia can build this important contribution to shaping global technology policy.

Black swans and how to find them: national approaches to managing risk

For a risk manager, few metaphors resonate more than that of a ‘black swan’ event. Equally interesting is the historical link between this term denoting low likelihood but extremely significant disruptive events and Australia. Europeans thought black swans didn’t exist in nature until the early exploration of southeast and western Australia established their presence and delivered an anomaly to extant beliefs of natural history.

In popular media, Nicholas Taleb describes a ‘black swan’ as follows: ‘First … it lies outside the realm of regular expectations, because nothing in the past can convincingly point to its possibility. Second, it carries an extreme impact. Third, in spite of its outlier status, human nature makes us concoct explanations for its occurrence after the fact, making it explainable and predictable.’

Such events are difficult to anticipate, let alone predict. They may generically be described as surprises that emerge from the fog of everyday life. An important goal of strategic risk assessment is the identification and mitigation of the most likely disruptions, ahead of lower probability events.

A key consideration in national security risk assessment is that not every event that could occur will occur. Investment in resources to prevent, mitigate and recover from disruptive events should be sensitive to this fact. Anticipating and preventing ‘black swan’ events remain a key consideration of all high-level risk assessments, particularly for those related to national security.

Comprehensive risk assessment is key to the delivery of national security outcomes and is a central aspect of the analytical kernel of thinking for many countries.

The United Kingdom, for example, maintains a national risk register. This work (underpinned by a classified risk assessment) provides advice to members of the public about the types of plausible threats and emergency disruptions (expressed as ‘risks’) that they may face in the short to medium term. The register, which is updated as needed, also provides information about government support services and advice about how communities themselves can be proactive. It is a great example of risk communication.

Since 2013, Canada has used an ‘all hazards’ risk taxonomy to guide thinking about national risk analyses. It uses two analytical lenses to consider threats to national security. The first focus is on adaptive or malicious sources: criminals, terrorists or foreign state actors. The second focus is on non-malicious sources: unintentional, health, natural and emerging phenomena and/or technologies.

A further example of deep expertise is Singapore’s risk assessment and horizon scanning program, which has developed over a number of years and has reached a high level of sophistication.

Australia doesn’t have a nationally coordinated multi-agency risk assessment framework. It is important to note, though, that we are not bereft of strategic efforts on risk reduction. We are currently developing deep insight into disaster resilience capabilities and vulnerabilities to natural hazards through the work of the National Resilience Taskforce and other work underway in Australian emergency management.

Our state governments have also been active in developing risk-based approaches to the disruptions they face. A critical fact, however, is that national security is not a state responsibility. A gap in Australia’s strategic policy arrangements is the absence of an up-to-date national security strategy.

The latest version of the strategy was released in 2013. The creation of the Department of Home Affairs, recent white papers and increased understanding of new and unexpected or underappreciated threats to Australia’s interests mean this strategy is now well past its use-by date.

In addition to ensuring greater coordination among relevant departments and agencies, an updated strategy would support the assessment of new vulnerabilities (and reassessment of existing ones), as well as allowing for prioritisation of effort and funding allocation.

Most of the international examples of national risk assessment frameworks and processes noted above operate in concert with a whole-of-economy security strategy. Assuming economies of scale exist for updating our ageing national strategy alongside developing a national risk assessment capability, international risk assessment practice suggests several core elements should be incorporated, including:

  • a comprehensive threat taxonomy framework—incorporating both malicious and non-malicious threats across domestic and international contexts
  • a common risk lexicon—ensuring participating agencies ‘speak the same language’
  • communities of practice established across central agencies that use a standardised assessment methodology which applies an all-hazards/threats approach with input from both closed and open information sources
  • Australia-specific horizon-scanning capabilities that support both general policy development and detailed assessments at agency and national levels.

There will always be the possibility of ‘black swan’ disturbances that provide lessons for policymakers. Australia must sustain both a capability to detect these events ahead of their appearance and mitigate the harm they cause. If we don’t achieve that, we may have to endure voyages of painful discovery after the swans find us.

Reader response: in the face of terror, let’s invest in resilience

John Coyne provides an interesting perspective on what he sees as the problem of our political leaders focusing on quick-fix, get-tough security measures (such as installing bollards and calling for a 24/7 AFP tactical response at airports, tougher bail laws and heavier-armed police), rather than long-term strategies for addressing complex security problems.

John is right that ‘people expect and value steadfast resolve when it comes to terrorism’ and that after recent terror attacks here and abroad ‘it’s understandable that our leaders want to appear tough on security’.

I’d add that in a paradoxical way the public’s expectations are higher today because of the security improvements we’ve made in recent years. The recent Lowy Institute annual poll has some interesting findings on this. Feelings of safety remain at their lowest point in the 13-year history of Lowy’s polling. While most Australians (79%) say they feel ‘safe’ overall, only 20% (down four points since 2015) feel ‘very safe’, and 21% feel unsafe overall. Terrorism was the main factor here—68% of Australians saw it as a ‘critical threat’.

National security spending continues to grow as the community has accepted that we need long-term investment in critical policing and intelligence capabilities to counter future terrorism threats. But because of these investments, ironically any security lapses have become more unacceptable to the public.

So, it’s not surprising that people expect state and federal governments to reach the highest standards of security they can. Even though our political leaders know they can’t deliver perfection, they often inflate community expectations by acting as if vulnerability to terrorism can be eliminated completely. Thus even minor security failures loom much larger to the public than plots foiled. (And with saturation media coverage of recent terror events in Manchester, London and the Melbourne suburb of Brighton, people find it difficult to judge the actual risk of a terror attack occurring.)

I’d add one further comment on John’s article. He says that federal and state government leaders should focus their domestic security thinking on ‘how their decisions will support the detection, disruption and/or mitigation of risks’. I agree with that, but I think that we need to be careful not to put all our eggs in the detection-and-disruption basket.

An equal emphasis in my view should be placed on planning to respond and recover. The kind of response we saw from Londoners in the recent attacks—not just ‘keeping calm and carrying on’ but also the help they offered to first responders—provides some measure of deterrence to would-be terrorists who want us to panic and overreact. In other words, the way that London has been preparing for these kinds of emergencies has helped to strengthen the communities and make them less surprised when attacks do occur. (It’s worth a look at this BBC story on how British people reacted on social media to a New York Times story that stated that the UK was ‘reeling’ from the recent London attacks.)

Put bluntly, we need to prepare much more for national security emergencies, and that will affect perceptions of public safety: communities will be able to exercise more control over how they react to terrorism. That applies especially when it comes to healthcare preparedness for mass casualty terrorism.

When terror attacks occur, we need to minimise the loss of life and speed recovery. That’s something that London’s Metropolitan Police did superbly when they intercepted and killed the three attackers within eight minutes of receiving the first call. We can also learn from Israel, whose highly resilient population has been tested by many disruptive events. Its communities have very high capacities to continue operations and daily life during crises. There’s a high rate of preparedness based on known doctrine and many exercises, continuous systems and programs to mitigate the effects of the disruption. There’s effective dissemination of relevant information to communities and trust in local leadership. As a country that’s endured decades of conflict and terror, yet still managed to build a flourishing economy and vibrant democracy, Israel offers insights into individual and societal resilience in the face of terror.

The more empowered people feel the less afraid they’ll become: investing in enhanced community resilience isn’t admitting defeat or neglecting efforts to prevent terrorism. It’s about minimising the costs of terrorism. When it comes to counterterrorism, our political leaders need to regularly articulate the value of and benefits from investment in resilience.