The defence and foreign relations debate in Australia is bedevilled by several entirely obvious flaws. In the first place, foreign affairs people very seldom mention defence while the defence people seldom emerge from technical assessments to discuss the larger and usually imprecise foreign and often global circumstances on which their planning and eventual operations must depend. Yet even a cursory reading of ancient or modern history demonstrates that the utility, not to mention the details, of defence policy always depend on the larger foreign affairs context, while the foreign affairs posture of any nation depends to a marked extent on the assessment by others of its capabilities in defence as well as in other areas, including economic stability.

As a subset of this there is a continuing dispute between those who—usually in the context of that meaningless verbal construct, of an ‘Asian Century’—give overriding priority to Australian concerns in ‘our region’ in Asia, especially Southeast Asia and the Southwest Pacific, and others who take a more international or global view. That discussion has all the hallmarks of an unhelpful inter-departmental dispute. It is true that the problems of the Solomons and Papua New Guinea are closer to Australia’s shores than those of Portugal or Poland. But the financial problems of Portugal have a far greater influence on the Eurozone, the decisions of the International Monetary Fund and therefore on Australia’s economic security and global standing, than the financial fate of East Timor or even Malaysia. Read more

The big story this week is still Syria, and expectation has reached a fevered pitch. The Economist writes that

…The congressional votes and the action to follow [will be] one of those episodes that will define America’s—and the West’s—place in the world. It will signal what is left after the hubris of Iraq and unfathomable complexities of Afghanistan. Amid challenges from Russia and Iran and the growing weight of China, both as an economic power and a champion of authoritarian purpose (as opposed to democratic indecision), it is also a measure of the West’s self-belief. The world is watching.

But it’s not simple for President Obama. Foreign Policy has this piece on Obama’s dilemmas in Syria, and Gideon Rachman writes in the Financial Times that:

For better or worse, Mr Obama drew such a red line over Syria… The governments of Japan, Israel and Poland – to name just a few – will all feel less secure if Congress votes against military action in Syria.

The National Interest has an analysis of whether Syria could ‘kill’ the US rebalance to Asia, and the Wall Street Journal has this look at who makes up the Syrian Opposition.  And on a more operational note, here’s a map of relevant US (and French) military assets in the region, and a potential target list in the Washington Post. Read more

I’ve just returned from Perth where I participated in two events. The first was a forum run jointly by the Africa Australia Research Forum at Murdoch University and the Crawford Fund (an organisation focused on international agricultural research assistance), on the theme Mining, agriculture and development: bread from stones?. The second was the tenth Africa DownUnder mining conference. I spoke on the outcomes of the recent ASPI–Brenthurst Foundation’s Aus-Africa Dialogue.

Recent comments by Peter Jennings and Russell Trood resonated with me. Both called for a broader international focus in Australia’s foreign policy. Peter commented that it was ‘misguided’ to think that our relations with major Asian countries, as highlighted in the Asian Century White Paper, constituted the total of Australia’s international interests and that it was ‘dangerous to concentrate on them at the expense of a more widely focused foreign policy’. Russell made a similar point when he said the new government should ‘examine comprehensively all of Australia’s foreign policy interests, not merely those focused on the Asia–Pacific’. Read more