Podcasts about defence white paper

In this episode of the Defence Connect Podcast, Mike Pezzullo, principal author of the 2009 Defence White Paper and former secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, joins host Steve Kuper to unpack how the Australian Defence Force can meet the demands of the nation's uncertain security environment. The pair begin the podcast by looking at the alternative global order, including an emerging Eurasian bloc that is seeing North Korean troops deployed in Russia and BRICS' alternative financial system. They then examine geopolitical fractures between BRICS members and whether China is in an economic position to become a global hegemon. Pezzullo then analyses how Australia's force structure is designed to overcome low-level threats and why the country needs a new base level of Defence spending. Kuper and Pezzullo wrap up by discussing efficiencies in domestic manufacturing and how technology can expedite the production of large-scale naval assets. Enjoy the podcast, The Defence Connect team

In this episode of the Defence Connect Podcast, host Steve Kuper is joined by former deputy secretary strategy in the Department of Defence and secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Michael Pezzullo, to discuss the “long arc” of Australia's defence policy. The pair begin their discussion focusing on the early days of Australia's “sovereign” defence policy, beginning in the aftermath of the Second World War, and our double-edged sword fear of “entrapment” and “abandonment”. They also discuss: The evolution of Australia's defence policy and posture during the Cold War, culminating in the 1986 Dibb Report and 1987 Defence White Paper which continues to influence the nation's posture and policy to this day. The 2009 Defence White Paper whose development was led by Pezzullo and the Force 2030 concept which marks the first time China's regional ambitions are highlighted and accounted for in Australian planning. The current predicament Australia finds itself facing in light of mounting great power tension and competition in the Indo-Pacific and our need to rapidly prepare. Enjoy the podcast, The Defence Connect Team

How does Australia's recently released National Defence Strategy (NDS) differ from a Defence White Paper?What are the merits of having a bipartisan approach to defence policymaking? How important is it to clearly communicate these concepts to the public?Is the NDS' focus on deterrence and denial well-suited to today's geopolitical landscape?Should Australia have an unclassified National Security Strategy and National Military Strategy to complement the National Defence Strategy? In this episode, Elizabeth Buchanan and Andrew Carr join David Andrews to analyse the merits and shortcomings of the 2024 National Defence Strategy. Dr Elizabeth Buchanan is an Expert Associate at the ANU National Security College (NSC). She is also an Associate Researcher with the French Ministry of Armed Forces' Institute for Strategic Research, Senior Fellow at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, and was previously Head of Research for the Royal Australian Navy's Sea Power Centre.Dr Andrew Carr is a Senior Lecturer at the ANU Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. He is also currently a member of the ANU-Defence Strategic Policy History Project, writing a history of Australian Defence White Papers from 1976-2020.David Andrews is a Senior Policy Advisor at NSC. Show notes: · Launch of the 2024 National Defence Strategy by the Hon Richard Marles MP· 2024 National Defence Strategy and 2024 Integrated Investment Program· Defence White Papers· Australia-United States Ministerial Consultations (AUSMIN)We'd love to hear from you! Send in your questions, comments, and suggestions to NatSecPod@anu.edu.au. You can tweet us @NSC_ANU and be sure to subscribe so you don't miss out on future episodes. The National Security Podcast is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and wherever you get your podcasts. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.

In this episode of the Defence Connect podcast, former Australian ambassador to the US and Opposition Leader, the Hon Kim Beazley AC, joins hosts Steve Kuper and Liam Garman to discuss the impact of the Defence of Australia policy and the role it continues to play in the modern world. The trio discuss: The geopolitical shifts in the late Cold War that went into shaping the 1987 Defence White Paper, best known for the formalisation of the Defence of Australia doctrine. The way in which the Defence of Australia policy continues to shape the Australian Defence Force and its force posture to this day. The end of the era of “warning time” and the important lessons Beazley learned during his time as the Australian ambassador to the United States. Finally, the trio wrap up discussing the rapidly changing reality of the world and some predictions ahead of the 2024 US general election. Enjoy the podcast, The Defence Connect team

Global Policy Watch: Tu Cheez Badi Hai Musk, Musk (umm, sorry)Insights on global policy issues — RSJOne of the great problems of policy, or even philosophy, is who should own things that are or that behave like public utilities. For instance, who should own news broadcasting services? Suppose you prepare a case study explaining what's news broadcasting, the perils that someone abuses such a service to spread fake news and propaganda, and the damage they do to society. Now hand over this case to a bunch of well-meaning people and ask them: how would they frame a policy on ownership of such a service? What do you think the answer will be? I don't have any empirical evidence to back this, but I think in most scenarios, you will find a group of well-meaning people supporting some kind of ownership by the state or a distributed set of individuals. They might suggest a set of tightly regulated norms on what should be broadcast, and they could also throw in a stringent penalty regime for violations. It is unlikely that any group will come up with the answer that it should be owned by a megalomaniac rich man who believes in free speech, flips the bird to regulators on most occasions and has a penchant for poop emojis. A public utility cannot be left to such unstable people regardless of their genius, is what most would say. Twitter is the equivalent of a global public square where news stories are broken, and opinions and trends are generated. Should it be owned widely by the public with a governing board that regulates the platform, its content and its algorithm? Or should it be owned by the state, which can run it like a public utility without a profit motive? Or should Elon Musk own it? What do you think?Twitter Is DifferentBefore I venture to write about the options, it will be useful to lay out the unique character of Twitter as a platform. During the week, I reached out to Amit Varma (doesn't need an introduction to readers here), who always has a clear-eyed view of things, to understand what he makes of the happenings at Twitter. His views helped me articulate my thoughts better. Read his insightful piece on Twitter here. First, unlike broadcasting services of the past, Twitter is exceptionally quick because it is a hyperconnected network of people. Events unfold in real-time on it, and trends catch on fast. Mobilisation on Twitter is faster than the speed of response of any state. It plays an outsized role in shaping the discourse because speed is a feature in today's age. Two, the incentive architecture of Twitter is designed to reward extreme positions. The ‘retweet' or ‘quote' button, the notion of having ‘followers' and the constraint of the 280 characters all mean there's more purchase for broad generalisations, provocative positions and performative behaviour to pander to your own tribe. Three, Twitter is a monopoly in a very unique sense. Granted, there are other platforms that take a share of our attention, but there's only one platform that richly rewards us for our attention with the dopamine hit in the manner Twitter does. Social media platforms tend to be ‘winner takes all' plays because, as a user, once you build a certain kind of network and reach that's unique to that platform, there's little incentive to start building it all over again for the same benefits in another. The switching costs are just too high. #OwningTwitterThink of these features of a broadcasting service together - hyperconnected and quick, rewarding fringe behaviour and a natural monopoly. How should we think about its ownership? Now look at the three options of its ownership - a) the state (or a group of states), b) a widely-held listed public company or c) a Musk-like figure. One way to think through this is to understand the natural incentives of these respective owners, how they will use the platform to achieve those and what will be the net societal outcomes of those actions. Take the state first. All good intentions aside, as we have demonstrated over and over again on these pages, the primary incentive of the state is to perpetuate itself. Or, the party that runs the state to continue being in power forever. While to many in India who are brought up to think of the state as the mai-baap, it seems like a fair arbiter of how a public utility should be managed, the evidence all around us should go against that intuition. A public utility like Twitter controlled by a state that's benign and fair can be a tremendous aid for the welfare of the community. But in public policy, you must consider the ‘corner cases'. You must ask, what if a utility like Twitter is in the hands of the politician you dislike the most? Will they be fair and benign? And then think about ownership and governance of such a utility and its consequences. So, the argument that a global public square like Twitter should be owned by a state or a group of states and managed like a global public good appears pious and workable on paper but is fraught with the risk of a bad faith actor with sovereign power taking it over. That will mean only one kind of fringe taking over. Bad things will follow.  Next, let's consider the ownership by a publicly held company which is how Twitter used to be till Musk bought it out. The management of such a company is the shareholders' agent, and its incentives are aligned with what's best for the shareholders. The management, therefore, works to maximise shareholder returns which get tracked every quarter based on the company's performance. Regardless of how visionary the management team is, they are toast if they do not deliver every quarter. There's no avoiding short-termism here. What's the incentive for any manager to fundamentally retool this company, take short-term hits for many quarters and live in the hope that the strategy will pay off in the long term? Nada. Shunya. Nobody has seen the long-term, and the shareholders have other places to invest than to wait for so long. Twitter has dug itself into a hole where outrage and fringe positions bring in engagement, and that engagement is monetised for advertisers. Even if you had an enlightened management team that knew the damage this ad-dependent business model was doing to society, it would find it impossible to junk the model and change the engines mid-air, so to speak. Because any change in course will need to be dramatic, meaning significant short-term pain. That would understandably test the time and patience of the shareholders. You would need a Steve Jobs-like reality-distortion capability to convince them otherwise. There aren't many Steve Jobs around to run a public company as professional CEOs. The best that Twitter, in its public company avatar, could do is to be managed efficiently. That's it. That efficiency on its current model however would mean it would only get better in coarsening our discourse and widening cultural chasms. I think this is what is called irony. Lastly, let's consider the option of a Musk-like figure buying out Twitter and doing what he pleases with it. What happens here? While it was somewhat easier to appreciate the incentives that drive the state or the shareholders of a public company, we can only speculate on Musk's incentives. There's no academic research done (yet) on Musk's behaviour and actions. So, we can only think in terms of scenarios here. Scenario 1 is what I call the ‘Matt Levine view of Musk'. Levine is a modern-day Plato. The most lucid interpreter of capital and economy in the world today. His newsletter is quite simply the best chronicle of our times. And it's free. What a legend! He has built a theory of Musk's purchase of Twitter in many delightful editions. In this theory, to Musk, Twitter is a video game he loves. Ordinary people, like you and me, play a game, get addicted to it and then, over a period of time, get bored with it. We start hating a feature, or a new upgrade isn't to our liking, or we see too many people playing it. Whatever. We move on. But Musk is not any of us. He's the world's richest man. He is also the world's most addicted user of Twitter. He loves to troll people there, responds with poop emojis to the tweets of others and originates many meme cycles. He's the shahenshah of all Twitter super users. So he buys up the video game company. Now he can play around with features as he fancies so that he can continue to enjoy the game. He placed a bid for it that was high. Then as the tech stocks and the markets crashed, that bid looked worse. Like any rational actor, he tried to get a better deal by threatening to pull out of the deal. Eventually, he bought it because a) he always wanted to buy it or b) maybe, because legally, he couldn't opt out of it. Whatever. It is his now. Is there a reason to believe this theory of Levine? The answer is yes. Musk is rich enough to throw $44 billion for his favourite toy. In any case, he's not paying everything from his own pocket. Maybe about half of the $44 billion. Nothing in how Musk has used Twitter so far suggests he has any great vision for the platform. In fact, he enjoys and leverages all the toxic features of the platform. Musk will play with this for some more time, and during that time, he will keep it running with some mix of charisma and his unique gift to meme-ify things. He will then hand it over to a sucker and walk out with a tidy profit. Twitter will then collapse in a heap. Or maybe it will collapse under his watch itself. An expensive way to amuse himself? Sure. But does he care? Either way, he'd have had his fun. That was his only incentive. Scenario 2 is the alternative that I want you to consider. I don't necessarily believe in it, but it has equal merit to exist as the Levine scenario. Think of it as the RSJ scenario. For a moment, consider that Musk is an incredibly rich man because he makes things that people pay a nice premium to own. In short, he's not a Sam Bankman-Fried. His businesses that are live offer genuine products with real software running within. People die if he gets them wrong. He has often mentioned in his interviews (listen to him speaking to Lex Fridman or Seth Rogen) that his primary concern is the survival of the human race. Therefore his preoccupation with autonomous cars, clean energy and finding an alternative to Earth as a home for our species. He doesn't think about them like a scientist. He isn't interested in the theory beyond a point. He wants to build products that will use science to solve these problems. He's an innovator. In this scenario, he views Twitter in its current form as a net negative for the race. He sees it going only from bad to worse. It is worth his time and money to intervene. To innovate. This is hard work. Remember, he doesn't need to work for a single day in his life. He can donate a tiny fraction of his wealth to build museums and libraries and earn all the praise and fame for posterity. His problem is there won't be any posterity. He isn't interested in delaying the inevitable. He wants to build an alternative for the inevitable. He doesn't want to tweak Twitter for it to be a net positive. He is certain it won't help. The old Twitter has to be changed at its foundation. That's why he is at the Twitter HQ working long hours (and occasionally tweeting). This is a different frame to look through. If you consider this scenario, Musk's incentives are to build a platform for good that doesn't have to cater to extreme positions for engagement and ad revenues. He has no short-term pressure to show better numbers, no shareholders to answer to, and no sword hanging over his head to show instant results. He is his own man. He will change Twitter for it to be a force of good at his own pace and time. $44 Billion is important even for as rich a man as he is. He could have put it anywhere to make more wealth. He's sinking it into a platform he thinks can do enormous good for humanity if it is changed. That's the only incentive that matters to him. Now consider how things will play out if you take the Levine and RSJ scenarios together. In both, Musk will behave based on his incentives. One of the two results is only possible then. Twitter will die in short order or turn itself around and be a force of good. In either case, we will be better off from where we are now with Twitter. Stacking It All UpSo, let me summarise this ownership and consequences thing here. a) The state(s) could own Twitter, and their incentive will mean they will weaponise it further to perpetuate themselves. This will be bad for everyone. It will be worse than where we are today. b) Or Twitter could continue being a widely-held public limited company with incentives that will dig a deeper hole for itself. It will mean ever-spiralling toxicity forever. Again a worse outcome. c) Or, Twitter could be owned by someone like Musk. Here, it will either die quickly or become a force for good. Either scenario will be an improvement on Twitter in its current form. Which ownership option from among the three would you choose?     Applications for the re-awesomed Post-Graduate Programme in Public Policy are now open. Check details here.Matsyanyaaya: Managing China the Aussie WayBig fish eating small fish = Foreign Policy in action— Pranay KotasthaneAnthony Albanese, the new Australian PM, had a tough couple of days this week. Asked about Taiwan's candidature for the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP) — a regional trade pact of 11 countries — he said, “The CPTPP is a relationship between nation-states which are recognised”. Since the statement came just three days after Albanese met Xi Jinping, it ruffled quite a few feathers. Did the statement mean Australia was trying to build bridges with China again? Was Australia changing its position concerning Taiwan as a result? In any case, the Australian government swung into action, clarifying that Canberra remains open to Taiwan joining the CPTPP. Albanese, too issued an explanation:“Our position has not changed. We will deal with applications that are dealt with by consensus for economies applying to join the CPTPP. At the moment, they're dealt with one at a time.”So, it's pretty likely that the Australian PM misspoke. There doesn't seem to be any change in the Australian position on Taiwan or China. However, this incident provides a window into the debate in Australia on its China policy.Australia, in recent years, has been the most vocal opponent of Chinese expansionism and authoritarianism. The surfacing of a case of Chinese interference in Australian domestic polity in 2017 was an inflexion point in Australia's China policy. Since then, it has actively tried to counter China's aggression unilaterally and balance China's power multilaterally. It is also the most enthusiastic participant of Quad 2.0. There is a bipartisan consensus that Australia needs to partner with the US and other powers to counter China, even if it means significant economic setbacks. And yet, there are some in Australia who oppose this consensus. Hugh White is one of them. In a recent Quarterly Essay, White opposes Australia's current China policy. He locates his opposition in realism and not idealism or liberalism. Some of his arguments echo the voices in India who are opposed to a closer collaboration with the West. For this reason, it's worth studying it in some detail. Here's my summary of the essay.BackgroundHugh White is a well-known Australian professor of strategic studies. He wrote Australia's Defence White Paper 2000. A constant theme in his writings has been that Australia should not overly rely on the US. It should instead learn to co-exist with a powerful China by drawing a few red lines. Essentially, he makes what we know in India as the “strategic autonomy” argument.TL;DRWhite argues that the US will “abandon” Australia as the costs to the US for meaningfully challenging China in East Asia are far higher than the benefits. The stakes for the US are far lower, unlike in Europe. In contrast, the stakes for China are much higher, and it will be willing to sacrifice a lot more to oust the US. Australia must therefore chart an independent strategy towards China, India, and Indonesia.Highlights from White's Essay* White admits that his view is out of the Overton Window. Both the Liberal and Labour parties of today consider China the paramount strategic threat and consider the alliance with the US vital.* He says Australian leaders thought they could “swing” between the US and China until 2017. They underestimated China's “ambition to push America our of East Asia and take its place as a leading regional power”.* Three factors led to Australia becoming the most strident anti-China country in the region within three years: Trump's China position, Xi Jinping's grip on power in Beijing and evidence of repression, and Malcolm Turnbull's premiership.* He takes Obama's China policy to the cleaners when he says: “They were deeply committed to the idea of preserving US primacy in Asia… but were reluctant to acknowledge, address and accept the costs and risks of doing so against a rival as formidable as China was turning out to be. They were in denial.”* The US, under Trump, declared China to be its rival for Asia but didn't do anything material. There was no significant increase in military capability in the Western Pacific and no enhancement of diplomatic or economic heft in the region.* Biden's policy that “America only reform at home to triumph abroad is deeply delusional. It is a delusion based on exceptionalism.” However, just as economic productivity and population made America a great power earlier, the same forces are now working for China. The exceptionalism mindset implies that the US doesn't have to make any hard choices or sacrifices to defeat China.* Both the Democrats and Republicans agree that America's policies abroad shouldn't cost voters at home. And so, no American leader will compete effectively with China.* White then goes on to analyse all the reasons why the US might want to confront China in East Asia and counters each of them. He reasons that the US forsakes isolationism only when there's a power strong enough to dominate the entire Eurasian continent. In the current scenario, China is nowhere near subjugating other Eurasian powers such as Russia, Europe, and India. For this reason, the US would be disinclined to commit its resources against China.* On the dimensions of a possible US-China conflict, White says that the US cannot match China's economic dynamism, its proximity, and the opportunities it offers. And the failed Trans-Pacific Partnership talks show that the US is not even trying. He trashes the diplomatic counter —the Quad — as a talk shop. He then says that the most important dimension is the military, as both sides explicitly threaten war if the other makes a wrong move.* Since China's stakes are higher, it would be willing to go to any length over questions such as a war over Taiwan. The US won't. Taiwan should be left for China.* He assumes a multipolar order is likely, where India, China, Europe, and Russia will have their spheres of influence. And so, he regrets that:“Instead of helping America to manage the strategic transition in Asia wisely, we are encouraging Washington to confront Beijing in a contest it cannot win”.* Australia must chart an independent policy towards India, Japan, and Indonesia.* Finally, he believes that China will not necessarily be a ruthless and bitter enemy with which Australia cannot do business. It is possible but unlikely. What's the Takeaway?White represents a view that's politically out-of-fashion in Australia. Yet, it is an analysis founded on realism. But some of his underlying assumptions are contestable. For one, Biden's current policies on China (like the semiconductor export controls) indicate that the US is willing to incur costs on its own companies and citizens to counter China. While it is true that the US cannot decouple from China in most fields, there is definitely a willingness to counter China in economic areas that the US considers core to its national security interests. This is a significant commitment that the Biden administration has made. It doesn't seem like the US will give China a walkover in East Asia.Secondly, it is unclear how a shaky outreach to China will be better for Australia than one in which China's powers are restrained because of a partnership with the US. If the US does back out from the region, it would indeed make sense for Australia and others to make peace with China — even if it is on the latter's terms. But we are far away from that happening.Thirdly, the fact that White's view is not acceptable to both political formations in Australia is proof of Xi Jinping's failed foreign policies. China is the most important trade partner for perhaps every country in its neighbourhood, and yet it has managed to put itself into a situation where many of these trade partners have reached a domestic consensus on standing up to China politically.Fourthly, I agree with White that the US does need to demonstrate its commitment to the Quad and IPEF quickly. If the US cannot commit itself to a trade arrangement with China's adversaries, its effectiveness as the paramount power in East Asia will decline. Countries will start cutting their own deals with China.And finally, India's position in this game differs from Australia's. While it is tempting to draw lessons for India from White's fear of depending on the US, that would be to miss a fundamental determinant of international relations: power. To the extent that the future prospects of a country of India's size keep growing, we need not fear about the loss of “strategic autonomy”. India's engagement with the US will be very different from the Australia-US partnership. And so, it doesn't look like Australia is changing its position on China after all. But there are no finalities in international relations. This space is worth watching.Not(PolicyWTF): A Perfect TakeoffThis section looks at egregious public policies. Policies that make you go: WTF, Did that really happen?— Pranay KotasthaneThis week marked a milestone for India's space sector. Hyderabad-based Skyroot Aerospace successfully launched India's first privately developed rocket into space. There's a lot left to be accomplished, but today is a good day to reflect on a rather-interesting story of policy reform. Aap Chronology Samajhiye…Until 2020, the space sector was effectively a government monopoly. Yes, a few private companies developed satellites or supplied materials and equipment to ISRO, but more ambitious projects were out-of-bounds for private companies. In this sector, liberalisation seemed particularly challenging because the government umpire and player — ISRO — was doing a far better job than other public sector organisations. So why reform something that's not broken? Why invest political capital in liberalisation and not double ISRO's budget instead? That would have been the starting position for politicians and bureaucrats. Many papers arguing for the liberalisation of the sector had been written earlier. As late as Jan 2020, there was no indication that a big reform was on the government agenda. My Takshashila colleagues had also put out a policy brief proposing a policy and regulatory structure to develop India's nascent private space sector. And then, the COVID-19 pandemic began. The horrendous lockdown was announced in March. The future looked scary. On 5th May, the border clashes in Ladakh began. On June 15th, the Galwan clash claimed the life of 20 Indian soldiers (and an unknown number of Chinese soldiers). The satellite imagery displayed in the public domain came from constellations of private companies in the West. And on June 24th, the union cabinet “approved” private sector participation in space activities. These connections are merely speculations, as we have no idea about the internal decision-making process of the government. Nevertheless, a few things are instructive.The government was searching for success in various domains after the botched lockdown. As for the space sector, the government could well have chosen a “big bang” reform to double the ISRO budget to improve India's presence in the space domain. The PM would have announced it on Twitter, and people would have cheered. Crucially though, the government had other policy solutions to choose from when the crisis hit. And it is praiseworthy that the government chose the option to liberalise rather than expand ISRO's mandate. By 2021, the government also had de-regulated geospatial information collection and dissemination. And by 2022, the first private-sector rocket had been launched.A lot more remains to be done in this sector. The role of ISRO and the new regulatory body needs clarification. But the key lesson for policy analysts is to be ready with well-articulated solutions before a crisis hits. While the crisis provided urgency, it could have also made the situation worse had the liberalisation option not been internalised by policy entrepreneurs in the government. Congratulations to SkyRoot. And thanks to the government for getting out of the way.HomeWorkReading and listening recommendations on public policy matters* [Newsletter] "What do Joe Biden's harsh Chinese chip controls mean for India?" Rohan Venkataramakrishnan and Pranay discuss this question in Rohan's excellent India Inside Out newsletter.* [Paper] Internal Drivers of China's External Behaviour by Shivshankar Menon is a must-read.* [Article] Nitin Pai explains why the opening up of India's space sector is a big reform.* [Podcast] On Puliyabaazi, historian Aashique Ahmed Iqbal gives an account of aviation in India. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit publicpolicy.substack.com

In this gripping essay, Australia's leading strategic thinker, Hugh White explores Australia's fateful choice to back America to the hilt and oppose China. What led both sides of politics to align with America so absolutely? Is this a case of sleepwalking to war? What tests might a new government face? White assesses America's credibility and commitment, by examining AUKUS, the Quad, Trump and Biden. He discusses what the Ukraine conflict tells us about the future. And he argues that the US can neither contain China, nor win a war over Taiwan. So where does this leave our future security and prosperity in Asia? Is there a better way to navigate the disruption caused by China's rise? “Canberra's rhetoric helps raise the risk of the worst outcome for Australia: a war between China and America, in which we are likely to be involved. Over the past decade, and without any serious discussion, Australian governments have come to believe that America should go to war with China if necessary to preserve US primacy in Asia, and that Australia should, as a matter of course, go to war with it.” —Hugh White, Sleepwalk to War Quarterly Essay 86, Sleepwalk to War: Australia's Unthinking Alliance with America was released 27 June 2022. To obtain a copy visit https://www.quarterlyessay.com.au/essay/2022/06/sleepwalk-to-warHUGH WHITE is the author of The China Choice and How To Defend Australia, and two acclaimed Quarterly Essays, Power Shift and Without America. He is emeritus professor of strategic studies at ANU, former Deputy Defence Secretary for Strategy, and was principal author of Australia's Defence White Paper 2000. Further Listening – Our previous interview with Hugh White - Episode 314 - Reality Check - Taiwan cannot be defended https://blubrry.com/mysecurity/84123792/episode-314-reality-check-taiwan-cannot-be-defended/#hughwhite #sleepwalktowar #quarterlyessay #nationalsecurity #indopacific #uschinarelations #mysecuritytv

The fourteenth issue of Australian Foreign Affairs examines the rising tensions over the future of Taiwan, as China's pursuit of “unification” pits it against the United States and US allies such as Australia. The Taiwan Choice looks at the growing risk of a catastrophic war and the outlook for Australia as it faces a strategic choice that could reshape its future in Asia. Published on 21 February, Issue 14 examines the rising tensions over the future of Taiwan and Hugh White discusses why war over Taiwan is the gravest danger Australia has faced. Hugh White AO is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University. His work focuses primarily on Australian strategic and defence policy, Asia-Pacific security issues, and global strategic affairs especially as they influence Australia and the Asia-Pacific. Hugh has served as an intelligence analyst with the Office of National Assessments, as a journalist with the Sydney Morning Herald, as a senior adviser on the staffs of Defence Minister Kim Beazley and Prime Minister Bob Hawke, and as a senior official in the Department of Defence, where from 1995 to 2000 he was Deputy Secretary for Strategy and Intelligence, and as the first Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI). In the 1970s he studied philosophy at Melbourne and Oxford Universities. He was the principal author of Australia's 2000 Defence White Paper. His major publications include Power Shift: Australia's future between Washington and Beijing, [2010], The China Choice: Why America should share power, [2012], Without America: Australia's future in the New Asia [2017], and How to defend Australia [2019] For a copy visit https://www.australianforeignaffairs.com/essay/2022/02/the-taiwan-choiceDiscount Code for your copy of the Australian Foreign Affairs - 14th Ed - AFA3OFF #taiwan #china #uschina #indopacific #asia #quad #anu #hughwhite

In episode two of Japan Memo, co-hosts Robert Ward and Yuka Koshino are joined by Professor Jimbo Ken, a security and foreign policy expert from the Faculty of Policy Management at Keio University, to discuss the defence and security trends highlighted in Japan's 2021 Defence White Paper, as well as: • Japan's missile defence challenges• Japan's investments in new domains (space, cyber, and electromagnetic spectrum)• The role of the US–Japan Alliance in meeting defence and economic security challenges • The significance of the United Kingdom's HMS Queen Elizabeth convoy in the Asia-Pacific • Japan's expanding security relations with Southeast Asian statesWe hope you enjoy the episode and please follow, rate and subscribe to Japan Memo on the podcast platform of your choice.Date of recording: 30 July 2021Japan Memo is recorded and produced at the IISS in London. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Photo: Chinese emperor. In a landscape in the middle, a Chinese man, an emperor, stands before a throne with stairs under a natural canopy. On the left are two men, on the right is a man with a parasol. Around the scene, an ornamented frame with garlands, vases with flowers, seed beads, floral motifs, wingèd figures and a dragon. In the bottom margin, a two-line French and German text. China's new nuclear intimidation.    Rick Fisher, senior Fellow on Asian Military Affairs of the International Assessment and Strategy Center, and @GordonGChang, Gatestone, Newsweek, The Hill.   https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/26/us/politics/china-nuclear-weapons.html?smid=tw-share   “. . . the CCP for decades abjured nuclear transparency and nuclear arms control for its weapons, while it carefully cultivated an image of nuclear restraint. This nuclear deception was summed up in China's 2019 Defence White Paper . . . The era of a ‘minimum' Chinese nuclear force is over”   .  

Veerle and Ken Moriyasu, US editor of Nikkei Asia, trace the continuities and changes in Japan's 2021 Defence White Paper, as well as Tokyo's enduring relationship with Washington, in the context of changing security dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. They also explore how domestic politics and public opinion continue to play an important role in how Japan responds to security challenges.

Originally published 21 July 2021 The New Defence White Paper offers insights into Tokyo's regional security perspective. Veerle and Ken Moriyasu, US editor of Nikkei Asia, trace the continuities and changes in Japan's 2021 Defence White Paper, as well as Tokyo's enduring relationship with Washington, in the context of changing security dynamics in the Indo-Pacific. They also explore how domestic politics and public opinion continue to play an important role in how Japan responds to security challenges.

On this episode of Democracy Sausage, eminent strategic studies expert Hugh White joins Mark Kenny to examine Australia's strategy for dealing with rising tensions between the United States and China and the prospect of armed conflict in the region.For decades Australian leaders have said the country doesn't need to choose between its history and its geography - between the United States and China - but has this position now been abandoned? Is the Chinese Government making an example of Australia by putting it in the diplomatic deep freeze? And how are other governments in the region, such as New Zealand and Japan, managing their relationships with the United States and China? On this episode of Democracy Sausage, principal author of the 2000 Defence White Paper, Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies Hugh White, joins Professor Mark Kenny to discuss regional tensions and Australia's strategy for managing its relationships with China and the United States.Hugh White is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific, The Australian National University.Mark Kenny is a Professor in the ANU Australian Studies Institute. He came to the university after a high-profile journalistic career including six years as chief political correspondent and national affairs editor for The Sydney Morning Herald, The Age, and The Canberra Times.Democracy Sausage with Mark Kenny is available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts, or wherever you get your podcasts. We'd love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum or join us on the Facebook group.This podcast is produced in partnership with The Australian National University. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

In this episode of The Director’s Chair, Michael Fullilove speaks with the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Mike Pezzullo. Mike Pezzullo is a lifelong official, described recently as ‘one of Australia’s most powerful public servants’. He has been a trusted adviser to both Labor and Coalition governments, the author of a Defence White Paper, and the prime mover behind a major restructure of Australia’s domestic security apparatus. He has been a senior staffer in both government and opposition as well as a public servant in the departments of Defence, Immigration and Customs, and Prime Minister and Cabinet. Michael and Mike reflect on Mike’s childhood in southern Sydney and discuss China, cybersecurity, Australia’s response to COVID, evolution of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, and Australian foreign policy.

In this episode of The Director's Chair, Michael Fullilove speaks with the Secretary of the Department of Home Affairs, Mike Pezzullo. Mike Pezzullo is a lifelong official, described recently as ‘one of Australia's most powerful public servants'. He has been a trusted adviser to both Labor and Coalition governments, the author of a Defence White Paper, and the prime mover behind a major restructure of Australia's domestic security apparatus. He has been a senior staffer in both government and opposition as well as a public servant in the departments of Defence, Immigration and Customs, and Prime Minister and Cabinet. Michael and Mike reflect on Mike's childhood in southern Sydney and discuss China, cybersecurity, Australia's response to COVID, evolution of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance, and Australian foreign policy.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

The 2020 Defence Strategic Update with Peter Jennings and Brendan Nicholson Four years on from the 2016 Defence White Paper, the Department of Defence has delivered a 2020 Defence Strategic Update. In this special episode of Policy, Guns & Money, Brendan Nicholson, Executive Editor at The Strategist discusses the update with ASPI’s Executive Director Peter Jennings. Peter Jennings: https://www.aspi.org.au/bio/peter-jennings Brendan Nicholson: https://www.aspi.org.au/bio/brendan-nicholson Background music: "Glitching a Ride" by The Whole Other via the You Tube Audio Library.

The military reforms initiated by President Xi Jinping have brought sweeping changes to the People's Liberation Army (PLA). But are these measures making China more secure? In this episode, Manoj Kewalramani and Suyash Desai discuss their new research on Chinese military modernization.Research SlideDoc:https://takshashila.org.in/takshashila-slidedoc-securing-china-an-assessment-of-xis-military-reforms/Active Defencehttps://www.amazon.com/Active-Defense-Military-Princeton-International/dp/0691152136Military Balance 2015:https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/the-military-balance-2015Military Balance 2019:https://www.iiss.org/publications/the-military-balance/the-military-balance-2019Chairman Xi Remakes the PLA:https://ndupress.ndu.edu/Publications/Books/Chairman-Xi-Remakes-the-PLA/China's Defence White Paper 2019:http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2019-07/24/c_138253389.htmFollow Manoj Kewalramani on Twitter @theChinaDude (https://twitter.com/theChinaDude)Follow Suyash Desai on Twitter: @Suyash_Desai (https://twitter.com/Suyash_Desai)You can listen to this show and other awesome shows on the IVM Podcasts app on Android: https://ivm.today/android or iOS: https://ivm.today/ios, or any other podcast app.

Paul Papalia first joined the Defence Connect Podcast at Pacific 2017 to discuss the opportunities that the 2016 Defence White Paper presented to Western Australia in cementing the region as a defence industry leader. Two years on, he joins us at Pacific 2019 to reflect on the progress that has been seen, discuss the general sentiment towards defence in the area, and reveal why there are many reasons for WA to be optimistic in the current defence climate. Minister Papalia explains the prominent role that WA plays in the trade economy with China, discusses his role as Tourism Minister for the region, and unpacks the WA Defence and Defence Industries Strategic Plan and how this will further raise awareness of the already thriving defence sector in WA on a global scale. Enjoy the podcast, The Defence Connect team

Diplomatic Brief: Ex-French spy chief Yves Bonnet admits to a 1980s pact with Palestinian terrorists, and in Libya, the government accepts a UN-backed Eid ceasefire proposal, and more

In this special episode of the Defence Connect Podcast recorded live on-site at the Avalon International Airshow and Defence Exposition, host Phil Tarrant is joined by the senior analyst of defence strategy and capability at the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, Dr Malcolm Davis, and Defence Connect journalist Steve Kuper to discuss some of the challenges facing the Australian defence landscape. Dr Davis will share his thoughts on Australia's position in the global defence environment, discussing the likelihood of Australia being at direct threat and how Australian involvement could look in future conflicts. He will address the gap that he believes has been created with the retirement of the F-111 and will also expand his take on the attitudes of defence leaders towards long-range strike capability. Finally, they will address the 2016 Defence White Paper and its relevance in the current defence climate, the push to keep Australian training and knowledge within Australia, and why communication with the US defence sector is paramount to our success. Enjoy the podcast, The Defence Connect team

“Industry has come from a background of they’ve had to pursue projects on a project by project basis, and the department has pretty much let contracts on a project by project basis without taking a broader view of developing an integrated and comprehensive industry base. There’s some great people in defence industry of course, but the leadership and the culture of the defence industry will have to mature somewhat to reflect this newfound national sovereign responsibility.” This week on the Defence Connect Podcast, former CEO of the Defence Materiel Organisation (DMO) and current chairman of Navantia Australia Warren King joins us to talk us through his 50 years of experience within Defence and defence industry, and what Navantia has offered as key components of its SEA 5000 bid. King takes us through his beginnings as a Navy apprentice, his time when he was seconded to the US Navy, what he learned from working in an SME and his eventual rise to CEO of the DMO. The chair of Northrop Grumman Australia’s advisory board offers his advice for those leaving the military, how Defence can achieve the most from its 2016 Defence White Paper ambitions and the need to grow leadership within defence industry.

On 13 December, the Lowy Institute hosted an address by the Hon Christopher Pyne MP, Minister for Defence Industry and the Leader of the House of Representatives. As Minister for Defence Industry he is responsible for Australia’s defence procurement and military capability including delivering the $200 billion worth of investment in Australia’s defence capabilities outlined in the Defence White Paper. Minister Pyne was first elected to Federal Parliament in 1993 at the age of 25, as the member for Sturt in South Australia. Through the Howard, Abbott and Turnbull governments, he has served as Assistant Minister for Health and Ageing, Minister for Ageing, Minister for Education and Training, and Minister for Industry, Innovation and Science.

Western Australia’s strong contribution to Australia’s defence capabilities is set to advance even more in the coming years with the plethora of incoming projects under the 2016 Defence White Paper. WA’s Defence Issues Minister Paul Papalia joined Defence Connect to discuss the once-in-a-generation opportunity the state has to cement itself as a defence industry leader, nationally and internationally in the Indian Ocean region. The former navy diver also discusses his time in the Royal Australian Navy, his drive to serve WA’s defence industry, the state’s transition from the mining and construction boom, the capabilities of the existing workforce and the future of shipbuilding in WA. http://www.defenceconnect.com.au

Austal has set the benchmark for successful Australian defence companies with a strong export focus, regularly securing multimillion-dollar defence and commercial contracts overseas, most recently landing a further contract for the Independence Class littoral combat ship (LCS) with the US Navy. Defence Connect caught up with Austal’s chief executive David Singleton at the Pacific 2017 International Maritime Exposition to discuss how Austal achieved its phenomenal success overseas, closing the cost gap between south-east Asia and Australia, his views on the success of the 2016 Defence White Paper thus far and the future of Henderson.

A driven and passionate SME that’s punching above its weight in the competitive Sonar segment, Ultra Electronics is not standing still. Chatting with the Defence Connect Podcast, Mills discusses the evolution of the business and opportunities within the reinvigorated defence industry post the delivery of the 2016 Defence White Paper. He also shares his key success factors for how SMEs can crack defence. http://www.defenceconnect.com.au

This week on the Defence Connect Podcast we discuss the fundamental steps the Australian Defence Force and policy makers need to undertake to deliver Australia’s security obligations – and the very important role of defence industry to support this – with Major General (Ret) Jim Molan. Major General Jim Molan gives his insights around the nature and future of warfare, the influence of the Defence White Paper and the nation's capabilities. Molan has been with the Australian Army for many years, where he has been involved in numerous postings, including Iraq in 2004. He is now using his extensive background in defence in his writing. His first book, Operations in the land of two rivers, was released in 2005 and his second book, Running the war in Iraq: an Australian general, 300,000 troops, the bloodiest conflict of our time, was released in 2008. Enjoy the show, The Defence Connect Team http://www.defenceconnect.com.au

The First Principles Review, the 2016 Defence White Paper, Defence Integrated Investment Plan and the Defence Industry Capability Plan have all stated that the ADF must posses sovereign industry capabilities, and now, the task of ensuring it happens has fallen to the CDIC. First Assistant Secretary of the Defence Industry Policy Division, Kate Louis, explains how the Centre for Defence Industry Capability (CDIC) plans to assess what capabilities the Australian Defence Force (ADF) needs and then identify which of those capabilities must stay sovereign. For the first time in Australian history, Defence has acknowledged the important role industry plays in developing and maintaining a fully functional, modern military. First Assistant Secretary Louis identifies how defence industry SMEs can best place themselves for participation in the large scaled Defence projects, engage with Defence and get involved in crucial enduring sovereign capability projects. Listen in to find out how the CDIC can also assist your business to prepare for export. Enjoy the show, The Defence Connect team https://www.defenceconnect.com.au

Auckland New Zealand, with all its Mayoral and Council pomp and celebration was designated a City of Peace in December 2011. Today it is hosting 20 visiting warships in its inner harbour and at the same time 500 weapons dealers are gathering less than a kilometre from Auckland’s Queen St. They are attending this harbourside Expo from the 16th and 17th November 2016 in order to tap into the NZ government’s $20 billion defence budget for new procurements.   In 2011 Auckland became a Peace City and that this resolution was ‘headed by a Peace Committee that Laurie was the Chair’ now finds itself as the focal point of a geo strategic naval war game this month - less than 20 kilometres off the shores of Auckland city, when NZ is supposed to be a keen advocate on being a Nuclear Free Nation and working towards being a Neutral Peacemaker too. As a result the Peace Movement of NZ is mobilising! All peace loving people are welcome to attend, a non violent demonstration prior to  a blockade outside the ANZ expo centre. Details below. The goal of this action is to bring both local and world attention to the fact that armaments and war are increasingly being pushed up the national and international priority list. Whilst, housing, health and social needs get less. So what do we want the people of NZ and our government to do? Download and listen to Laurie. Why is the military/industrial complex in New Zealand? Lockheed Martin is one of the world’s largest nuclear weapons, electronics and ‘security’ corporations and has a presence in New Zealand currently encompassing over 200 employees and operating on six sites in Trentham, Palmerston North, Burnham, Wellington, Auckland and Waiouru. Note that though Lockheed is the principal sponsor, (with a woman CEO of all things). The 90 other sponsors include General Dynamics, Hawker Pacific, ANZ, Airworks, Auckland University’s UniServices, Babcock NZ, Beca, Safe Air, AVIS, University of Canterbury Spatial Engineering Research Centre, Callaghan Innovation, Mainfreight, and Datacom Ltd. What is militarism in present day terms? Plus why now here in NZ? It is to celebrate “Seventy Five  years of the NZ Navy” and act at the same time - as a cover for selling weapons. Lack of Will & Diplomacy on a Global Scale. Why? Today, we have an issue of nuclear weapons being intensified with Russia & China being reclassified as the adversary and that no attempt is being made to mobilise diplomatic efforts on a broad front to look at resolving these issues and de-escalating what it happening. Why not greater diplomacy and Citizen Diplomacy as in the Reagan Gorbachev era? Note that President elect Trump has consistently stated he does not want confrontation with Russia, so let us trust that this is so. And he does not get infiltrated with Neocon advisers who subvert him. New Zealand as a Nuclear Free Peacemaker? For NZ there are many options to concentrate around Defence but not Offence and re focussing our Foreign policy of engaging in Peacemaking and Neutrality. Training up all personal in the defense forces in the many methods and modalities of peacekeeping, and helping the community that is being assisted to become more cohesive and functional. Emergency power, health, water, shelter and policing via the rule of law etc. Including mediation skills, food growing and education. What can we do as a nation as we already have an educational program in place that is championed by the NZ Peace Foundation - called Cool Schools. That has been introduced to  thousands of schools across NZ. Where children learn the skills of reconciling opposing points of view with peer remediation and conflict resolution. A huge export potential of this innovative method of bringing people together in a mode of ‘learned communication skills’ and equipping them for the future. However. Laurie goes far deeper talking about systems and structures and how to lay out the protocols on a vaster scale, that also encompasses not only local areas suffering from some disaster, but to larger situations involving whole countries.  Listen to the broadcast. peace foundation nz Laurie finishes with a prayer and a song.   This piece below is gratefully taken from Action Stations here in NZ. https://our.actionstation.org.nz/petitions/no-weapons-expo-no-warships We oppose the investment of billions of dollars in the military and new weaponry, which clearly does not deter terrorism, but rather contributes to violence, and war cycles. We will not stand for the government supporting an arms expo for international weapons companies. This is proposed for 16 and 17 November 2016 in Auckland, sponsored by the world’s largest weapons manufacturer and maker of nuclear weapons, Lockheed Martin. In June, 2016, the government announced $20 Billion of new spending on weaponry. At the same time, it extended an invitation to a US warship to visit NZ for the first time in 32 years. In November this year, this will all culminate in a week where warships dominate Auckland Harbour, and 500+ weapons dealers take over the ANZ Viaduct events centre for a trade show. The NZDF, Ministry of Defence and NZ Trade and Enterprise provide funding, personnel, equipment, displays and expertise for the Weapons Expo. The $20 Billion new military spending includes the purchase of new warships and aggressive cyber warfare capabilities described by Minister Gerry Brownlee as a "significant weapon". This is despite that the government's own evidence that "the country does not face a direct military threat in the foreseeable future." While billions are funnelled to multinational arms dealers, the real threats to ordinary people in New Zealand mount: poverty, homelessness, lack of adequate health care and catastrophic climate change. Auckland Peace Action is a grassroots community group working to oppose the warships and the weapons expo. We believe that it is not possible to build a peaceful and just world while simultaneously acquiring ever more weapons and doing more planning for war. This petition is an important part of our campaign this year to bring pressure on the government. Join the campaign for peace! [1] See "Does US Intervention overseas breed terrorism?" Foreign Policy Briefing. The Cato Institute. http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/fpb50.pdf [2] More information on the Weapons Expo can be found at http://www.nzdia.co.nz [3] http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/politics/80835677/defence-white-paper-20b-defence-upgrades-for-new-planes-boats-and-cyber-security [4] Ministry of Defence. 2016. Defence White Paper, p10. http://www.defence.govt.nz/pdfs/defence-white-paper-2016.pdf How it will be delivered: Auckland Peace Action sees this petition as an important part of our campaign opposing the weapons expo and the visit of foreign warships in November 2016. We need your support now to make this petition as powerful as possible. All the signatures will be delivered in the immediate lead-up to the weapons expo. It takes only a moment to download this from GreenplanetFM.com and you can listen to it whilst driving, bussing or training to and from work or leasure. Lauri is one of the most dynamic grandmothers in NZ who clearly articulates what needs to be conveyed and very powerfully too. ACTION DATES: Tuesday 15th Nov:   Dr. Helen Caldicott speaks Nobel Peace Prize Nominee Dr. Helen Caldicott, the world’s foremost anti-nuclear activist and researcher speaks at 7:30pm, at the Auckland University of Technology. Hosted by the Peace Foundation. Wednesday 16th:   Blockade the Arms Trade! Actively oppose the arms trade by the blockading the Weapons Expo. There are spaces for people who wish to actively blockade as well as space for support and family-friendly creative resistance. Check out the Facebook event for full details.   Thursday 17th:    WALL of NOISE – Drown out the Death Merchants. Bring your best noisemakers, instruments, banners and placards to drown out the weapons dealers’ party and awards ceremony happening inside. Evening. Check out the Facebook event for more details Peace Flotilla:  Time & place TBA Join up with a boat, kayak, surfboard or your body to resist the warships coming into Auckland Harbour. Details confirmed closer to the day. SATURDAY THE 19th Auckland Town Hall - the BIG MARCH 2pm. Come and make a noise, and Bring Banners & Placards. A Massive March for Peace Wednesday 9 November   2pm Press Release: People for Peace A big turnout is expected for a March for Peace on Saturday November 19th at 2pm, starting from the Town Hall, Queen St, and organised by “People for Peace”. Large numbers of people are stunned that the New Zealand Navy has invited approximately 15 warships to participate in the Navy’s 75 birthday celebrations and an International Naval Review. Other countries are sending senior officers to participate. The vessels, with their array of deadly weaponry, will berth at both Ports of Auckland and Devonport Naval Base. This is a stark call to all peace activists who opposed the US warships in the eighties and worked for a peace that may now be under threat globally, and also to the new generation of young people who see the insanity of warfare and want to take a stand for peace. “Even if the ships are non-nuclear armed, it is still not desirable to be reinforcing a warfare mentality and militarism when we should be promoting peace and underpinning the UN Charter that New Zealand signed in 1945,” said long time peace worker Lisa Er. “By endorsing conventional warships New Zealand is effectively being groomed for involvement in future wars” she said. In tandem with the warships visit is a weapons conference and expo, selling both military equipment and weapons, at the Auckland’s Viaduct Events Centre. It will bring together 500 arms dealers sponsored by Lockheed Martin, the world's largest weapons manufacturer and a producer of nuclear weapons. This is contrary to Nuclear Free New Zealand’s peacemaker policy role in the international community. It also contravenes Auckland’s City for Peace declaration, signed on Dec 15th 2011, which states that “Auckland Council is dedicated to the promotion of nuclear free zones and a culture of peace based on social, economic and environmental justice, tolerance and nonviolence.” Veteran Peace activist Laurie Ross says, “New Zealanders must ensure that the multimillion dollar weapons industry is not permitted to promote its warfare culture under the guise of security, business and free trade in this country.” “Unlawful terrorism will not be stopped by nation states increasing their warfare capacity but rather by curbing the sale of weapons and militarism throughout the world” she said. The March for Peace is an opportunity for the public to show en mass their disdain for warfare and their desire to live in a peaceful world, and is complementary to the Week of Peace events.   Contacts: Laurie Ross  laurie-ross@xtra.co.nz Ph 09 818 0696 Lisa Er  lisa@peaceteam.org,nz mob 021 777 473   City for Peace Declaration: http://www.peace.net.nz/sites/default/files/kiora/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/City-for-Peace-Declaration.pdf UN Charter: http://www.un.org/en/sections/un-charter/un-charter-full-text/   Sunday 20th:  Peace Ships, NOT Warships! 1pm @ the Cloud We’ll be having a peace picnic in the midst of the Navy birthday celebration reminding everyone that war is not a celebration bring banners, picnic stuff and other peace materials.

The Australian Army has operated as an expeditionary continental army for most of its history. However, the 2016 Defence White Paper reflects an affirmation of strategic policy that positions Australia’s security within the maritime environment of the Indo-Pacific region. Does this mark a turning of the tide for Australia’s strategic defence operations? On 4 October, the Lowy Institute hosted an address from Australia's Chief of Army, Lieutenant General Angus Campbell, which explored the changing nature of Australia’s defence strategy in a new maritime environment and its implications for the Australian Army. Lieutenant General Campbell was appointed Chief of the Australian Army on 16 May 2015. He served as Chief of Staff to General Peter Cosgrove and later Air Chief Marshal Angus Houston during their respective tenures as Chief of the Defence Force. He was appointed as Commander Joint Task Force 633 in 2011, responsible for all Australian forces deployed in the Middle East and Afghanistan, for which service he was awarded the Distinguished Service Cross. He holds a Bachelor of Science (Honours) from the University of New South Wales, a Master of Philosophy in International Relations from Cambridge University, and is a graduate of the Australian Army Command and Staff College.

Peace activist Valerie Morse talks with Lisa Er on the upcoming weapons conference, warship visits and why this is bad for New Zealand and the rest of the world. This November, coinciding with the New Zealand Navy’s 75th birthday celebrations, is the annual NZ Defence Industry Conference and Arms Expo, that includes approximately 500 international weapons companies. The Navy "celebration" is a stage-managed marketing event to secure public support for future ties with the US, sanctioning wars, with ever-increasing budgets, and the recruitment of young men and women who are asked to fight and die. 

 This is proposed for 16th and 17th November 2016 in Auckland, sponsored by the world’s largest weapons manufacturer and maker of nuclear weapons, Lockheed Martin. Also sponsoring are Thales, Babcock, ThyssenKrupp, and Cubic Defence (all in the top 100 list of international arms companies), along with the NZ Defence Industry Association, itself an industry trade promotion group consisting of another approximately 60 members involved in weapons and military-related production. Lockheed Martin currently has a $446 million contract with the NZ Navy to upgrade New Zealand's two frigates, Te Mana and Te Kaha; boats the Government has already indicated it plans to replace as part of its $20 billion boost to the NZ Defence Force, announced as part of the Defence White Paper released earlier this year. This enormous injection of cash into the military is happening despite the NZDF's own evidence that "the country does not face a direct military threat in the foreseeable future". The New Zealand military has been continuously at war in Afghanistan alongside the US for 15 years; it is conducting regular training with the US Marine Corp, and it participates in the largest maritime war games in the world, the US-led Rimpac. The NZ Defence forces original deployment to Iraq was aimed at helping a broader coalition, headed by the United States, to defeat Islamic State and reduce the threat politicians say it poses to New Zealand. Now the deployment has been extended. New Zealand has clearly come under pressure from the US to stay on in Iraq. It is not just about the extra resources, it's about having more countries in Iraq as part of the coalition, giving greater legitimacy to the US-led "Operation Inherent Resolve."

 Valerie says, “We’ve had enough of the politics of fear and austerity. We aren’t going to stand by while those who profit from misery, murder and repression meet to make new deals and congratulate themselves on their successes. We need YOUR help to blockade the weapons conference and to create a peace flotilla on the water to resist the warships.” Get involved 
To get involved, see the link to Auckland Peace Action below.

 Valerie Morse is a writer, librarian, peace activist and anarchist. She is the author of two books: “Against Freedom: the war on terrorism in everyday New Zealand life”, and “The Day the Raids Came: Stories of survival and resistance to the State Terror Raids”. 
She has worked on a range of grassroots community issues including war, arms dealers, climate justice, prison abolition and public transport. She loves to garden, and pet fuzzy animals.

 Valerie is passionate in her opposition to war. She writes - “There are two broader interconnected issues that arise in opposition to the Weapons Conference. First, if there is a military, it needs weapons. Therefore, the issue of the Weapons Conference goes to the heart of the military project in New Zealand. Does New Zealand need a standing army? The peace movement with a long trajectory back to the First World War would say no. Contemporary academics and commentators reject the very idea of the “Defence Force,” instead decrying New Zealand’s history of offensive engagement in foreign wars of empire and conquest.”
 Both journalist Nicky Hager, and Russell Norman of Greenpeace, agree that New Zealand’s Nuclear-Free Act will not be threatened by the US Navy bringing a warship to be part of the NZ Navy's 75th birthday in November.
 Oh really? 
Think again!
 The US position on neither confirming nor denying whether its war ships are nuclear powered or nuclear armed remains the same. What has changed is the position of the New Zealand Government. It is now perfectly happy to use what is publically available and known as to the ships background, and so it is not going to ask anything further! This is the first time in 32 years the US has been invited to send a warship to New Zealand. This event is the culmination of many years of work by those who wish to bring the New Zealand military back into the fold of US empire. The New Zealand government has signed both the Washington and Wellington Declarations in recent years, re-committing the country to joint military cooperation, and conveniently side-stepping the nuclear-free issue altogether. We as a country need to decide who we are. 
Wellington was declared a nuclear free zone on April 14 1982 and 40 local authorities in total had declared themselves nuclear-free by the end of 1984. It is an affront to this country’s nuclear-free status that a naval exercise with United States ships will be taking place in the waters of the Aotearoa New Zealand this November. 

Are we a country that sits under the US military and nuclear umbrella, supporting foreign wars that have nothing to do with us; or are we going to stand up for our own sovereignty declaring  that war is never a solution, and that we will insist on staying nuclear free. Here is a link to Auckland Peace Action Group where you can get involved!
 https://aucklandpeaceaction.wordpress.com Link to Valerie’s article “New Zealand’s Homegrown Military-Industrial Complex” 
http://www.converge.org.nz/abc/pr/50/pr50-005.html Link to Valerie’s book “Against Freedom - The War on Terrorism in Everyday New Zealand Life”.
 https://www.rebelpress.org.nz/files/againstfreedom.pdf

 This interview is sponsored by The Awareness Party
http://www.theawarenessparty.com

Australia’s Defence White Paper, submarines and scotch? Sounds like a recipe for a fun time. Get ready for a special joint episode with the Perth USAsia Centre’s Perspectives podcast series. In this episode, Kyle Springer, Program Associate at the Perth US Asia Centre, asks Natalie Sambhi, host of Sea Control: Asia Pacific, and Reed Foster, retired US Army officer … Continue reading Sea Control 112 – Australia’s 2016 Defence White Paper →

The Australian Defence White Paper sets out an ambitious and expensive future for Australia's defence capabilities. But how does it stack up? Associate Professor Stephan Fruehling and Professor Hugh White run the rule over the white paper on this Policy Forum Pod with Martyn Pearce See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.

Today we will speak about:CICD Greetings on IWD;Defence White Paper;The Turnbull Government's recent unrestricted nuclear deal with India;Nuke Industry targets SA;and The Parliamentary Election result in Iran 

Euan Graham, Sam Roggeveen and Michael Fullilove discuss the Australian Government's new Defence White Paper.

The belief that China will soon become the dominant power in Asia is based on assumptions that its continued and rapid economic rise, and its emergence as a regional peer of America’s in military terms is all but assured. Such a belief underpins arguments that a fundamental strategic reorganisation of Asia is inevitable, and that it will be necessary and perhaps even desirable to concede to China significant ‘strategic space’. Dependent largely on linear extrapolations about the future, such arguments ignore the implications of China’s economic, social and national fragilities, its lack of major friends or allies in the region as well as the considerable military deficiencies and challenges faced by the People’s Liberation Army. With the Defence White Paper due for release in 2015, the government should bear in mind that planning for an era of Chinese dominance in the region—or even its emergence as an American strategic peer in Asia—would be premature if not improbable. Australia should not design its defence force for war with China, but it should be able to counter Chinese coercion and contribute to Allied military operations if necessary. This talk was delivered by Emeritus Professor Paul Dibb and Adjunct Associate Professor John Lee.

The Government’s decision to commission a new Defence White Paper – the third in just in just five years – suggests that Australian defence policy is in trouble. That comes as no surprise, because Defence policy is never easy. But the new White Paper will only fix the problems if we understand why the last two failed, and avoid the same mistakes. Professor Hugh White AO, ANU Public Policy Fellow delivered a keynote address during ANU Public Policy Week 2014.

Lord West explains how Britain, and the Royal Navy, adjusted to dramatically straitened circumstances after the Second World War. He describes the dramatic social changes that began after 1945, including big pay rises, improved food and conditions of service - and even the beginning of the end for hammocks. He explores the Royal Navy's crucial role in the development of nuclear weapons, and the impact they had on defence thinking and the future of conventional forces. And he speaks to Laura Sandys MP, the daughter of former Defence Secretary Duncan Sandys, about his seminal 1957 Defence White Paper, which shaped British defence thinking for a generation. Producer: Giles Edwards.

The federal government has no greater responsibility than defending the nation. That's what the then defence Minister Joel Fitzgibbon declared in 2009. Few would disagree. He was introducing the Rudd government’s Defence White Paper. But the Gillard government has torn up the White Paper. While China is becoming a major military power, and throwing her weight around, Labor has left us defenceless. Just on this failure, the government should go. The people should have the power to recall a government - any government - which fails in its very first duty -defending the nation.