Arguably, the Americans have brilliantly played successive Australian governments by casting the shiny lure of nuclear submarines out somewhere in the distant future and reeling in control of Australia’s defence policy.
Read more
Author: Mike Scrafton
After 2024 America could be a less reliable ally than under Trump
Formidable illiberal forces are emerging in the US, which, in power, could have profound consequences for America domestically and for America’s position in the world. After the 2024 US presidential election, America’s reliability, predictability, and compatibility as an ally could even be less than under Trump.
Read more
US National Defence Strategy reveals Australia’s nuclear deterrence role
On PM Albanese’s watch Australia has, without explanation, agreed to host US B-52H Stratofortress aircraft: “a nuclear stand-off platform with global reach”. The recent US National Defence Strategy provides the missing context, and effectively confirms Australia’s role in American nuclear war planning.
Read more
B-52s at RAAF Tindal commits Australia to America’s nuclear war plans
B-52s are part of the US’s nuclear capability. Basing these aircraft at RAAF Tindal draws Australia into America’s nuclear war planning. How did Australia come to this? And why?
Read more
Extent of former US officials’ role in AUKUS submarines decision called into question
Abandoning plans to buy French designed conventionally powered submarines in favour of US or UK supplied nuclear powered submarines has come under sustained criticism on the grounds of strategy, cost, and practicality. Now the involvement of former US officials with potential conflicts of interest gives rise to the possibility that the AUKUS submarines decision itself was tainted.
Read more
US National Security Strategy: dogma for a misconceived crusade
The new US National Security Strategy sets out the preconditions for a secure and prosperous future for all – with China meekly deferring to American intent on shaping the international order in line with American interests and values. What could go wrong?
Read more
Australia’s strategic debate must avoid pop psychology and Game of Thrones thinking
Can non-expert distanced observers meaningfully deduce the psychological and moral make up of national leaders? Is a nuclear umbrella a vestige of an outmoded nuclear framework, from an earlier strategic era, without contemporary relevance? Some responses to Professor Paul Dibb.
Read more
America’s proposed Taiwan Policy Act could be a game-changing act of provocation
The US’s proposed Taiwan Policy Act of 2022, if approved, would bring the prospect of war in the Asia-Pacific closer. The draft legislation foreshadows radical changes in US policy, amounting to abandonment of the one-China policy and de facto recognition of Taiwan as a state. What does this mean for Australia?
Read more
Will uncritical faith in America’s future technological dominance be a strategic weakness for Australia?
The rebirth of a lost innovative technological utopia requires a vibrant, stable polity that tolerates debate, dissent, and difference; and supports objective research standards. America looks nothing like this.
Read more
Would Australian defence of Taiwan amount to the crime of aggression?
The people of Taiwan are in a deeply unenviable position. But international law is neutral over political systems, and Taiwan’s democracy gives it no special right to secede. Does advocating for this make Australia a revisionist state?
Read more
Defence reviews: what are they good for?
The recently announced Defence review looks set to be much more than the promised ‘force posture review’. The opportunity to anchor Australia’s strategy and military posture in a broad appreciation of a significantly changed international environment should not be lost.
Read more
Facing “Hothouse Earth”, will governments continue half-a-century of inaction?
For 50 years climate research has accumulated on climate change, and governments, with the major democracies at the forefront, have failed to respond. Facing ‘a perilous, all-pervasive climate breakdown’, what will they do now?
Read more
The difference between international law and America’s ‘rules-based order’
Restricting its foreign policy activities within the norms and processes of international law doesn’t sit well with the struggling hegemon, and the US has had to invent the imaginary and vague regime of a ‘rules-based global order’. Successive Australia governments seem prepared to go to war for a figment of the hegemon’s strategic imagination.
Read more
Mr Marles tugs the forelock in Washington
Submission to US strategic objectives is often on display as new Australian Defence Ministers ritually wend their way to Washington to offer up jaded homilies, full of hagiographic accounts of ANZUS and strained assertions of shared values. The new Minister’s recent visit, however, foreshadows a more dangerous abandonment of fundamental elements of national sovereignty.
Read more
War over the rules-based order doesn’t make sense
Going to war over the ‘rules-based order’ seems unremarkable to our leaders. Its nature, and how it would be preserved by conflict, seems to be intuitively perceived by them. Yet, the elevation of the rules-based order to a status so sacrosanct that the destruction of civilisation is justified in its defence demands investigation.
Read more
Beijing not Madrid, Prime Minister, would be more in Australia’s interests
Australia’s interests are not obviously met by joining gatherings on distant shores with leaders sharing different strategic concerns. The Asia Pacific remains at the heart of Australia’s economic and strategic interests and the crucible where Australia’s prosperity and peace will be forged.
Read more
The American sophist: Blinken weaves a Bidenesque fantasy
Bidenesque tales of a beneficent and wise ruler, who only wants his land to be the richest and strongest nation because of the benefit that it would bring to all, can’t be allowed to obscure the real situation in America, nor its brutally realist pursuit of its own interests through power.
Read more
Proactive Defence diplomacy not American militarism better supports Australia’s security
Credit is due to Australia’s new Prime Minister and Foreign Minister for moving swiftly to correct the foreign and climate policy failures of the Morrison era. But shouldn’t there be a similar rethinking and resetting of strategic policy?
Read more
The window for Albanese to assert Australia’s sovereignty is closing
Before the seductive power that security classifications, codeword documents, need-to-know briefings, and the jargon of militarist advisers blunt the critical faculties of ministers, which it almost always does, the new Australian government needs to consider the matter of war.
Read more
After Ukraine a fractured and unravelling global order will confront governments
Putin’s forces might not progress far beyond the Dnieper River. And yet the invasion will reshape the world in which the next Australian government operates.
Read more