POPULARITY
7 episodes with Hugh White
4 episodes with Hugh White
4 episodes with Hugh White
2 episodes with Hugh White
2 episodes with Hugh White
3 episodes with Hugh White
2 episodes with Hugh White
2 episodes with Hugh White
2 episodes with Hugh White
Defence expert Hugh White says Australia should leave AUKUS and plan to "take responsibility for our own security", without relying on the US coming to our aid.Mentioned in this episode:Sign up to The Conversation's newsletterhttps://theconversation.com/au/newslettersHow Australian Democracy Works'How Australian Democracy Works' edited by Politics Editor Amanda Dunn is out now in all good book stores.
As talk of American isolationism under Donald Trump grows louder, big questions are being asked about the future of the US-Australia alliance.How should Australia see its place in the Indo-Pacific if China ultimately takes control of east Asia?Guest: Hugh White - Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University.Recommendations:Geraldine: SpielbergHamish: Deal With Kurds May Benefit Erdogan at Home and AbroadGet in touch:We'd love to hear from you! Email us at global.roaming@abc.net.au
With Kieran McAnulty, Sean Sweeney, Benedict Collins and Hugh White.
Strategic studies expert Hugh White talks Australia's defence situation, arguing our political leaders are out of step with the rest of the region.How can we best spend our tax dollars to ensure that Australia's defence capabilities are 'fit for purpose'? What politics internationally and closer to home, are impacting Labor's decisions on shipbuilding and defence? And with the recent ASEAN-Australia special summit in Melbourne, do our leader see eye to eye with the region and each other on how to best manage the shifting strategic environment? On this episode of Democracy Sausage, Emeritus Professor Hugh White from The Australian National University (ANU) discusses making Australia's defence ‘fit for purpose' with Professor Mark Kenny. Hugh White is an Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at ANU College of Asia and the Pacific. Mark Kenny is a Professor at 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, Pocket Casts, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. We'd love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to democracysausage@anu.edu.au. This podcast is produced by The Australian National University. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
Australia has spent almost 15 years trying to buy new surface ships for the navy, but they are still yet to arrive. That's because governments have repeatedly thrown out the old plan to introduce their own. Last week, the Albanese government was the latest to reveal their plans for the future of the navy's surface fleet. So, will it work? Today, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University and contributor to The Saturday Paper Hugh White, on Labor's navy overhaul and whether it's an expensive grab for votes. Socials: Stay in touch with us on Twitter and Instagram Guest: Emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University and contributor to The Saturday Paper, Hugh White
Big decisions are being made about the future of Australian defence, with very little public debate. Highly esteemed defence strategist Hugh White is trying to inspire this national conversation. He joins Geraldine and Hamish to discuss why he thinks AUKUS is a mistake and what he thinks Australia needs to do instead, if we really want to secure ourselves in a rapidly contested region.Recommendations:Geraldine: Navalny - documentary. Available on SBS On Demand until 20 April 2024Hamish: Essay by Hervé Lemahieu in Australian Foreign Affairs journal (AFA20 - February 2024), proposing that Australia pursue a common travel area and an integrated digital market with the Pacific.
Melvyn Bragg and guests discuss the anchoress and mystic who, in the late fourteenth century, wrote about her visions of Christ suffering, in a work since known as Revelations of Divine Love. She is probably the first named woman writer in English, even if questions about her name and life remain open. Her account is an exploration of the meaning of her visions and is vivid and bold, both in its imagery and theology. From her confined cell in a Norwich parish church, in a land beset with plague, she dealt with the nature of sin and with the feminine side of God, and shared the message she received that God is love and, famously, that all shall be well and all manner of things shall be well. With Katherine Lewis Professor of Medieval History at the University of Huddersfield Philip Sheldrake Professor of Christian Spirituality at the Oblate School of Theology, Texas and Senior Research Associate of the Von Hugel Institute, University of Cambridge And Laura Kalas Senior Lecturer in Medieval English Literature at Swansea University Producer: Simon Tillotson Reading list: John H. Arnold and Katherine Lewis (eds.), A Companion to the Book of Margery Kempe (D.S. Brewer, 2004) Ritamary Bradley, Julian's Way: A Practical Commentary on Julian of Norwich (Harper Collins, 1992) E. Colledge and J. Walsh (eds.), Julian of Norwich: Showings (Classics of Western Spirituality series, Paulist Press, 1978) Liz Herbert McAvoy (ed.), A Companion to Julian of Norwich (D.S. Brewer, 2008) Liz Herbert McAvoy, Authority and the Female Body in the Writings of Julian of Norwich and Margery Kempe (D.S. Brewer, 2004) Grace Jantzen, Julian of Norwich: Mystic and Theologian (new edition, Paulist Press, 2010) Julian of Norwich (trans. Barry Windeatt), Revelations of Divine Love (Oxford World's Classics, 2015) Julian of Norwich (ed. Nicholas Watson and Jacqueline Jenkins), The Writings of Julian of Norwich: A Vision Showed to a Devout Woman and a Revelation of Love, (Brepols, 2006) Laura Kalas, Margery Kempe's Spiritual Medicine: Suffering, Transformation and the Life-Course (D.S. Brewer, 2020) Laura Kalas and Laura Varnam (eds.), Encountering the Book of Margery Kempe (Manchester University Press, 2021) Laura Kalas and Roberta Magnani (eds.), Women in Christianity in the Medieval Age: 1000-1500 (Routledge, forthcoming 2024) Ken Leech and Benedicta Ward (ed.), Julian the Solitary (SLG, 1998) Denise Nowakowski Baker and Sarah Salih (ed.), Julian of Norwich's Legacy (Palgrave Macmillan, 2009) Joan M. Nuth, Wisdom's Daughter: The Theology of Julian of Norwich (Crossroad Publishing, 1999) Philip Sheldrake, Julian of Norwich: “In God's Sight”: Her Theology in Context (Wiley-Blackwell, 2019) E. Spearing (ed.), Julian of Norwich: Revelations of Divine Love (Penguin Books, 1998) Denys Turner, Julian of Norwich, Theologian (Yale University Press, 2011) Wolfgang Riehle, The Secret Within: Hermits, Recluses and Spiritual Outsiders in Medieval England (Cornell University Press, 2014) Caroline Walker Bynum, Jesus as Mother: Studies in the Spirituality of the High Middle Ages (University of California Press, 1982) Ann Warren, Anchorites and their Patrons in Medieval England (University of California Press, 1985) Hugh White (trans.), Ancrene Wisse: Guide for Anchoresses (Penguin Classics, 1993)
Australia's defence strategic review points to China's huge military build-up, but Australia's response to changing conditions is 'unclear' and 'timid' according to our guest, strategic policy expert Hugh White.
Rachel Withers, The Politics Columnist and Contributing Editor of The Monthly speaks about the latest developments on the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. Former Leader of the Australian Greens, environmentalist, and giant of the conservation movement Bob Brown speaks in-depth with host Amy Mullins. In a wide-ranging and deep conversation, Bob reflects on his life of activism, protest, and deep personal connection with nature including the giant native trees of Tasmania, as depicted in an inspiring documentary, THE GIANTS (in cinemas April 20, co-directed by Rachel Antony and Laurence Billiet). The film interweaves Bob's story with the life cycle of the ancient trees he is fighting for. In this conversation, Bob shares his wisdom to those who care for and want to protect the environment, and gives us his take on a range of environmental and conservation issues today. Bob heads up the Bob Brown Foundation. Hugh White, contributor to The Monthly, Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at ANU, and author of The China Choice, chats with Amy about his latest piece for The Monthly, ‘Penny Wong's next big fight'. Hugh looks at whether Foreign Affairs Minister Penny Wong can stop Australia going to war and examines how her foreign policy positions have evolved as shadow and foreign affairs minister. Does Penny Wong believe AUKUS now positions Australia for an inevitable Pacific war, or does she still think we needn't choose between the US and China? Note: The two songs Bob Brown mentions from the 1960s, as aired on the show – If I Had A Hammer by Peter, Paul, and Mary AND Little Boxes by Peter Seeger.
Penny Wong has assumed the Foreign Affairs portfolio at a crucial time in Australian history. For years China has been on the rise, but now it's challenging the United States' dominance in the Pacific. World leaders and military planners are openly weighing the risk the two superpowers could stumble into war. How does Australia navigate a path to peace? That question now rests on Penny Wong's shoulders. Today, contributor to The Monthly and Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at ANU Hugh White on how she is approaching the challenge. Socials: Stay in touch with us on Twitter and Instagram Guest: Contributor to The Monthly and Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at ANU, Hugh White
As tensions between the US and China rise, what are the implications for our future security and prosperity? What are the risks of a war over Taiwan? What is the place of AUKUS in all of this? How should we handle this difficult situation? The Australia-China relationship is our most important foreign policy issue. China is our key trading and investment partner and an increasingly powerful influence in our region. Amidst growing anxiety, it is becoming difficult to find balanced and contextualised analysis.
Determine if soldiers friendships to frequent interactions with local Bostonians had potential to extend their connections within and outside of town. Learn how British Officers modified desertion issues. Understand basic differences between Skilled & Unskilled Work. Learn about Hugh White including his rank and whether or not he joined the Army at same time Matthew Chambers had done so. Find out what made the 1760's & 1770's unique for Boston. Get an in depth analysis behind a building at end of Boston's King Street which reigned supreme. Learn if British Troops were welcomed into Britain's Cities. Determine if British Officers were very familiar behind consequences resulting in unnecessary military force on their own home soil. Get an essential understanding behind what happened along Boston's North End come February 22, 1770. --- Send in a voice message: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kirk-monroe/message Support this podcast: https://podcasters.spotify.com/pod/show/kirk-monroe/support
Strategic studies expert Hugh White argues that the AUKUS submarines arrangement is a deeply flawed deal that ties Australia to the United States in the event of a major armed conflict in Asia.Are nuclear-powered submarines the most cost-effective and strategically sound option for Australia? Is Australia paying for the Virginia-class submarines with a portion of its sovereignty as well as a very large sum of money? And is the Australian government basing its decision-making on flawed assumptions about the United States' ongoing pre-eminence in Asia? On this episode of Democracy Sausage, Emeritus Professor Hugh White from The Australian National University (ANU) discusses the AUKUS deal with Professor Mark Kenny.Hugh White is an Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at ANU College of Asia and the Pacific.Mark Kenny is a Professor at 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 Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Google Podcasts or wherever you get your podcasts. We'd love to hear your feedback on this series, so send in your questions, comments or suggestions for future episodes to democracysausage@anu.edu.au.This podcast is produced by The Australian National University. Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information.
The single biggest defence spend in Australian history was announced this week, with the government committing up to $368 billion over the next 30 years to acquire nuclear submarines. Former prime minister Paul Keating has called it “the worst decision by a Labor government in a century”. And big questions remain about whether these subs will ever be delivered at all. So, what could a misstep in the rollout mean for our security as tensions rise between China and the United States? Today, emeritus professor of strategic studies at ANU, Hugh White, on why the AUKUS submarines might never be delivered. You can read his article on the deal on The Saturday Paper website, published in conjunction with Australian Foreign Affairs. Socials: Stay in touch with us on Twitter and Instagram Guest: Emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Australian National University, Hugh White
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
In this essential essay, Hugh White explores Australia's fateful choice to back the United States to the hilt, and oppose China. How did we come to this position – what led both sides of politics to align with America so absolutely?
Australia has a strong alliance with America, one that has remained unwavering through changes of leadership and turbulent international developments. While agreements such as AUKUS and the Quad have strengthened our position in the region, it has come at the cost of relations with other states in the region and could in the future draw us into conflict. 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? A Melbourne event to discuss Sleepwalk to War, a new Quarterly Essay by Hugh White. Panel: - Professor Hugh White (Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) - Dr Emma Shortis (School of Global, Urban and Social Studies, RMIT) - Professor Andrew O'Neil (Acting Dean, Griffith Graduate Research School, Griffith University) - Associate Professor Bec Strating (Director, La Trobe Asia) (Chair) Recorded at the La Trobe University City Campus on 30th June 2022.
On this episode of the Grapevine, Kulja and Dylan get on the line with Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies, Hugh White, to talk about Australia's America-centric approach to strategic policy in the Indo-pacific. Prof White explores the high stakes geo-politics of the Pacific in the latest edition of The Quarterly Essay, Sleepwalk to War: Australia's Unthinking Alliance with America.And Guardian Australia's Victorian state correspondent, Benita Kolovos, calls in to discuss the mass resignation of senior ministers in the Victorian Government and what it means for November's state election.
Leading Australian defence expert Hugh White argues that the AUKUS agreement - and our faith in America's willingness and ability to come to our aid - is giving us a false sense of security. His Quarterly Essay "Sleepwalk to War: Australia's Unthinking Alliance with America" is out today.
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 recent months senior Australian politicians have talked openly about a potential military conflict with China over Taiwan. The increasingly tense rhetoric follows a series of incursions by China into Taiwanese air and naval space. Now, China's leaders are closely watching the current crisis in Ukraine, looking for clues as to how the US might react towards Chinese aggression in the Pacific. Today on 7am, Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University Hugh White, on the changing power dynamics in our region, and the risks of war between the US and China. Guest: ANU Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies, Hugh White. Stay in touch with us on Twitter and Instagram
In recent weeks the world's two superpowers, China and the United States, have been steadily building up their military presence in the Taiwan Strait.Chinese President Xi Jinping has made it clear that he wants to bring Taiwan back under China's control, a move the United States seems likely to resist at all costs.Today, Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University Hugh White on how Australia could be drawn into a war over Taiwan, and why it could turn nuclear.Guest: Emeritus Professor at the Australian National University, Hugh White. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Today, Hugh White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, reads his cover essay from the latest issue of The Monthly.It's called ‘War of Error'. It explores the failures of the United States in Afghanistan, and the folly of Australia's unquestioning support.Guest: Hugh White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Today, Hugh White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University, reads his cover essay from the latest issue of The Monthly. It's called ‘War of Error'. It explores the failures of the United States in Afghanistan, and the folly of Australia's unquestioning support. Guest: Hugh White, emeritus professor of strategic studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Có lẽ ngày 16/09/2021 (theo giờ Úc) cũng đã nhẹ nhàng trôi qua như bao ngày khác, nếu như Úc - Mỹ - Anh không công bố hiệp ước quốc phòng mang tên AUKUS, với việc cho phép Úc có được hạm đội tàu ngầm sử dụng năng lượng hạt nhân. Điều này cũng có nghĩa là hợp đồng mua tàu ngầm chạy bằng động cơ diesel - điện do Pháp thiết kế sẽ bị hủy bỏ. Tại sao chính phủ Morrison lại làm điều này ? Có chăng sự bội tín từ Canberra đã làm nội các Paris nổi giận và có ảnh hưởng lên mối quan hệ đôi bên ? Phản ứng từ Bắc kinh trước tầm nhìn chiến lược mới của Úc ra sao ? Mời quý vị theo dõi cuộc phỏng vấn của RFI Tiếng Việt với luật sư - nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang*. ********** RFI Tiếng Việt trước hết xin cảm ơn ông đã dành thời gian cho cuộc phỏng vấn. Nếu nhìn một cách bao quát trên cục diện địa chính trị, chiến lược Tam cường AUKUS cùng với việc Úc mua tàu ngầm năng lượng hạt nhân có ý nghĩa đặc biệt thế nào ? Luật sư-Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang : Trong bối cảnh địa lý chính trị mới, mối đe dọa từ Trung Quốc mỗi ngày một gia tăng, đặc biệt tại Biển Đông. Do đó lãnh tụ Mỹ, Anh và Úc đã mật đàm nhiều tháng trong và sau Hội nghị Thượng Đỉnh G7 tại Vương Quốc Anh hồi tháng 6/2021. Kết quả, liên minh chiến lược gọi là AUKUS được công bố cùng một lúc tại ba thủ đô ngày 16/9 bởi thủ tướng Úc Scott Morrison, thủ tướng Anh Boris Johnson và tổng thống Mỹ Joe Biden. Cả thế giới, bạn cũng như thù, Bắc Kinh cũng như Paris, đều ngạc nhiên trước diễn tiến này. Mặc dầu chính phủ Pháp đã nhận được thông báo nhiều giờ trước, nhưng Paris đã không coi là “tham khảo” đúng nghĩa và theo đúng nguyên tắc bang giao quốc tế. AUKUS là một liên minh chiến lược dài hạn, mà dự án đầu tiên và có lẽ quan trọng nhất là Mỹ, Anh sẽ trợ giúp Úc trong việc xây dựng hạm đội 8 chiếc tàu ngầm sử dụng năng lượng hạt nhân. Hậu quả, dự án hợp tác 12 tàu ngầm quy ước trị giá 90 tỷ Úc kim (tương đương với 66 tỷ Mỹ kim và 50 tỷ euro) mà Pháp và Úc đã ký kết năm 2016 bị hủy bỏ. Thỏa hiệp song phương Pháp - Úc đã tiến vào thời điểm chốt mà mỗi bên đều có thể hủy bỏ. Trái lại, nếu Úc không dứt khoát và để thời điểm này trôi qua, hợp đồng sẽ khó có thể hủy bỏ hoặc là việc hủy bỏ sẽ quá tốn kém, nên không còn cơ hội nào tốt bằng chính thời điểm này. AUKUS có ý nghĩa đặc biệt, vì đây là lần đầu tiên Mỹ chia sẻ kỹ thuật nguyên tử tối mật với một đồng minh, ngoại trừ Vương Quốc Anh 60 năm trước đây. Nước Úc cam kết sẽ tuân thủ quy định không phổ biến vũ khí nguyên tử theo Hiệp ước Quốc tế NPT. Và cũng không kém phần quan trọng về mặt chính trị quốc nội, đó là Úc sẽ không chế tạo và sử dụng vũ khí nguyên tử. Tổng thống Biden và thủ tướng Morrison đều đã nhấn mạnh khi loan tin về sự thành lập AUKUS: 8 chiếc tàu ngầm này sẽ sử dụng năng lượng hạt nhân, nhưng sẽ không được trang bị vũ khí nguyên tử. Tuy vậy, hạm đội mới này cho thấy Úc đang thay đổi tư duy về vai trò của mình trong liên minh với các quốc gia tự do dân chủ. Đặc biệt hơn nữa là thế đứng của Úc trước sự trỗi dậy quân sự của Bắc Kinh. RFI : Như ông đã nói, việc chính quyền thủ tướng Scott Morrison thực hiện dự án đầu tiên của AUKUS cũng đồng nghĩa hợp đồng đóng tàu ngầm hàng chục tỷ đô la Úc với Pháp sẽ bị hủy. Trong khi, Pháp là một đồng minh thân hữu, một đối tác chiến lược quốc phòng quan trọng của Úc. Điều này có được coi như là một sự bội tín theo cách cáo buộc từ Paris, hay đây là kết quả tất yếu đã được dự báo trước qua các lần thương thảo đôi bên ? Luật sư-Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang : Chính phủ Pháp tỏ ra giận dữ và cay đắng trước diễn tiến mới này, không những về mặt nội dung, mà còn về phương cách “tham khảo” và thông báo quyết định mà Pháp coi là rất vụng về. Sau nhiều lần thương lượng gay go, chính phủ Pháp và Úc đã ký thỏa hiệp năm 2016. Theo đó, Pháp (thoạt đầu do Tổng Công Ty DCNS và tiếp theo là do Naval Group, một Tổng Công ty quốc doanh) sẽ xây dựng 12 chiếc tàu ngầm tấn công “attack submarines” thuộc lớp Barracuda. Lúc bấy giờ, chính phủ Úc có thể chọn loại Barracuda chạy bằng năng lượng hạt nhân hoặc Barracuda theo quy ước, tức là sử dụng diesel-electric. Úc đã lầm lẫn và gây ra sự chậm trễ khi chọn Barracuda quy ước. Hai nước phải thương thuyết lại nhiều lần và đã có lúc thỏa hiệp có nguy cơ bị bãi bỏ. Và gần đây nhất, các cuộc thảo luận này diễn ra ở cấp cao nhất là giữa thủ tướng Morrison và tổng thống Emmanuel Macron. Sau khi tham dự Hội Nghị Thượng đỉnh G7 tại Anh hồi tháng 6, tức là khi mật đàm tam phương đã bắt đầu, phái đoàn thủ tướng Morrison công du Pháp và được tổng thống Macron tiếp đón tại điện Elysée. Dự án tàu ngầm Pháp - Úc được thảo luận. Theo lời đại sứ Pháp tại Canberra, ông Jean-Pierre Thebault (nhân vật có mặt tại cuộc gặp gỡ này), thủ tướng Morrison đã nêu lên quan ngại của Úc về chính sách và hành động của Bắc Kinh tại Ấn Độ - Thái Bình Dương và Úc phải có quyết định thích hợp để bảo vệ quyền lợi quốc gia. Chính phủ Pháp có thể đã không giải thích phát biểu của ông Morrison như là một thông báo rằng Canberra sẽ thay đổi dự án đóng tàu. Hoặc nếu chính phủ Pháp đã giải thích đúng ý định của thủ tướng Morrison, sự hoài nghi này có thể đã bị đánh tan, bởi vì khoảng 3 tuần lễ trước khi công bố AUKUS, ngoại trưởng Úc Marise Payne hoặc/và bộ trưởng Quốc Phòng Úc Peter Dutton đã xác nhận với các bộ trưởng đồng nhiệm Pháp là dự án Barracuda không có gì thay đổi. Phản ứng bất mãn mạnh mẽ của Pháp không những đã được diễn đạt bằng lời, mà còn bằng hành động. Ngoại trưởng Pháp, Le Drian mô tả hành động của Úc và Mỹ là “một nhát đâm sau lưng” của một đồng minh. Bộ trưởng Quân Lục Pháp Florence Parly tố cáo Úc đã phản bội, làm mất lòng tin giữa hai nước. Nhưng quan trọng hơn cả, tổng thống Pháp Macron nói rằng, hành động của tam cương Mỹ - Anh - Úc là không thể chấp nhận được giữa các đồng minh. Ông Macron còn tố cáo tổng thống Mỹ Biden đã phá hoại dự án tàu ngầm của Pháp và Úc. Bên cạnh đó, chính phủ Pháp đã triệu hồi đại sứ Pháp tại Washington và đại sứ Pháp tại Canberra về nước “để tham khảo ý kiến”. Đây là hành động và ngôn ngữ thông thường khi một chính phủ muốn hạ giảm mức độ bang giao với một chính phủ khác. Tại Washington, tòa đại sứ Pháp hủy bỏ một lễ kỷ niệm 240 năm hải quân Pháp trợ giúp hải quân Mỹ đánh bại hải quân Anh trong cuộc chiến dành độc lập của Hoa Kỳ. Tuy nhiên, có lẽ quan trọng hơn hết là chính sách của Paris đối với Bắc Kinh. Trong vài năm gần đây, chính phủ Pháp đã gia tăng sự hiện diện hải quân tại vùng Đông Nam Á, và năng động hơn cùng với các đồng minh Âu - Mỹ trước sự bành trướng của Bắc Kinh. Nếu vì lý do AUKUS mà Paris trở nên thụ động hơn trong chính sách đối trọng với Trung Quốc, đó sẽ là điều không may cho cả Úc (và Việt Nam) trong vấn đề Biển Đông. Ngoài ra, Pháp là một thành viên rất quan trọng trong khối Liên Âu mà Úc đang thương thuyết hiệp định tự do thương mại FTA. Mặc dầu Liên Âu đã xác nhận AUKUS sẽ không gây ảnh hưởng tiêu cực cho tiến trình đàm phán FTA, nhưng không ai có thể tiên liệu việc gì sẽ xảy ra. Điều mà chúng ta có thể tiên liệu, và chính phủ Úc cũng sẵn sàng, đó là Pháp sẽ đòi bồi thường thiệt hại lên đến nhiều tỷ đô la. Cả hai chính phủ vào một lúc nào đó sẽ phải tạo lại hòa khí, nhưng tiến trình này có thể mất nhiều năm. RFI : Có những nguyên nhân khả dĩ nào để giải thích cho hành động chuyển hướng mang tính bùng nổ này của Canberra, thưa ông ? Luật sư-Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang : Từ sau Thế chiến Thứ hai, Úc theo đuổi chính sách phi nguyên tử. Cụ thể, Úc không nỗ lực chế tạo vũ khí nguyên tử, cũng như không năng động tạo dựng một kỹ nghệ nguyên tử tại Úc, thí dụ như sử dụng nguyên tử nặng vào lĩnh vực năng lượng mà nước Úc cần. Mặc dầu về mặt tài nguyên, Úc rất giàu có với khối lượng uranium đáng kể. Bởi thế, AUKUS được coi là một sự xoay chiều quan trọng lần đầu tiên xảy ra trong hàng mấy thập niên qua. Chính phủ Úc không nhìn AUKUS từ góc cạnh kinh tế, mà hoàn toàn về mặt chiến lược an ninh quốc phòng. Thủ tướng Morrison nói rằng mục tiêu chiến lược của Úc không thay đổi, tức là bảo vệ chủ quyền, độc lập và giá trị tự do dân chủ cho nước Úc, đặc biệt là đối với các đại cường. Thế nhưng, theo đánh giá của chính phủ Úc, bối cảnh chiến lược đã thay đổi trong thực tế. Đó là sự đe dọa mỗi ngày một gia tăng từ Trung Quốc, với sự trỗi dậy không hòa bình về mặt kinh tế và quân sự. Do đó, dù không thay đổi mục tiêu chiến lược, nước Úc cần phương tiện tân tiến hơn để theo đuổi mục tiêu chiến lược ấy (Thủ tướng Úc Morrison đã nói “We do not change our mind, but we need a new tool”). Đó là lý do vì sao Úc cần có hạm đội tàu ngầm chạy bằng năng lượng hạt nhân. Tàu ngầm sử dụng năng lượng hạt nhân có rất nhiều lợi thế so với tàu ngầm quy ước, vì nó có khả năng lặn sâu rất lâu, hoạt động trong một vùng địa lý rộng lớn hơn và vận hành rất êm,nên khó có thể bị phát hiện. Tàu ngầm hạt nhân cũng ít khi cần phải nổi lên mặt nước, nên không dễ bị tấn công. Nhưng ngược lại, tàu ngầm hạt nhân cũng bị tai nạn và điều này đã xảy ra nhiều lần trong các hạm đội Mỹ, Anh, Nga, v.v… Một bất lợi khác cho Úc là thiếu chuyên viên kỹ thuật và nguồn nhân lực phục vụ hạm đội tàu ngầm. Còn nhiều yếu tố quan trọng khác mà vào thời điểm này chưa được tiết lộ là tổng phí của hạm đội tàu ngầm này. Sau 18 tháng nghiên cứu và thảo luận giữa các chuyên viên Mỹ - Anh - Úc, người ta chưa biết tàu ngầm sẽ được xây dựng như thế nào và tại đâu, cũng có thể tại Mỹ và một phần tại Adelaide, tiểu bang Nam Úc. RFI : Ngoài nước Pháp, theo ông, tại sao Trung Quốc cũng có phản ứng tiêu cực mạnh mẽ và thái độ của Bắc Kinh đối với Canberra sẽ như thế nào ? Luật sư-Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang : Bắc Kinh cũng chỉ trích mạnh mẽ Thỏa hiệp Tam cương AUKUS, bởi Bắc Kinh hiểu rằng, Trung Quốc là lý do chính của sự hình thành hợp tác chiến lược này, mặc dù lãnh tụ ba nước thành viên không hề nhắc đến Trung Quốc, khi công bố cũng như khi trả lời phỏng vấn. Ba lãnh tụ không lạ gì với phản ứng của Bắc Kinh. Trong khi đó, Pháp là quốc gia duy nhất bên ngoài AUKUS mà tổng thống Joe Biden nhắc đến, với sự ca ngợi quan hệ đồng mình chặt chẽ với Mỹ. Chắc hẳn ông Biden cũng dự đoán được phản ứng từ Paris. Phát ngôn viên bộ Ngoại giao, Triệu Lập Kiên, như thường lệ, đả kích ba thành viên AUKUS là hãy còn "tư duy lỗi thời của thời Chiến tranh lạnh" và họ sẽ gây thiệt hại cho chính họ. Bắc Kinh còn đổ trách nhiệm vào ba nước AUKUS về một cuộc chạy đua vũ trang, tạo bất ổn cho toàn thế giới. Hoàn Cầu Thời Báo, cơ quan ngôn luận diều hâu của Nhân dân Nhật báo Bắc Kinh, còn táo bạo hơn khi xác quyết rằng trong bất cứ cuộc chiến nào, nếu xảy ra, Bắc Kinh sẽ chiến thắng. Tại Úc, viễn cảnh một cuộc tấn công từ phía Trung Quốc, đặc biệt từ các căn cứ ở Biển Đông, là một đề tài thường xuyên được thảo luận giữa các chuyên gia và chính giới. Cựu thủ tướng Paul Keating và cựu thủ tướng Kevin Rudd, cũng như Giáo sư Hugh White, một chuyên gia về an ninh quốc phòng vẫn thường lập luận rằng, về mặt chiến lược, nước Úc nên tiến gần với Bắc Kinh, hơn là duy trì quan hệ chặt chẽ như hiện nay với Mỹ. Hai cựu lãnh tụ Đảng Lao Động còn e ngại rằng, nguy cơ bị tấn công từ Bắc Kinh sẽ gia tăng vì Úc là thành viên của AUKUS. Tuy vậy, đây chỉ là quan điểm thiểu số. Trong khi đó, đa số dân chúng và phần lớn chính giới Úc vẫn ủng hộ quan hệ đồng minh giữa Úc và Hoa Kỳ mà nền móng đã được đặt trên Hiệp định hợp tác quốc phòng ANZUS 1951. ANZUS là chiếc dù bảo vệ của Mỹ trước mối đe dọa thường xuyên của Trung Quốc. Và nay AUKUS tạo cơ hội cho Úc có khả năng đóng góp hữu hiệu hơn với tư cách là thành viên của khối các quốc gia tự do dân chủ. Có thể là một lập luận nghịch lý, nhưng khi nước Úc mạnh mẽ hơn về mặt quân sự trong một liên minh chiến lược mạnh mẽ hơn, nguy cơ một cuộc chiến với Trung Quốc sẽ giảm, vì cuộc chiến mà Bắc Kinh gây ra sẽ vô cùng tốn kém cho Trung Quốc. Đó là hậu quả của một thế chiến lược trên nền tảng quân bình sức mạnh quân sự gọi là deterrence. Trong khi đó, nếu Úc bị đe dọa tấn công (kể cả bằng vũ khí nguyên tử), đôi lúc Canberra cũng có thể tạo áp lực ngược lại. Trung Quốc nộp đơn xin gia nhập Hiệp định Tiến bộ và Toàn diện Hợp tác xuyên Thái Bình Dương (CPTPP), nhưng Bộ trưởng Thương mại Úc Dan Tehan đã cảnh báo, Canberra có thể bác đơn này. Một quốc gia chỉ có thể gia nhập CPTPP khi được tất cả thành viên đương nhiệm đồng thuận. RFI : Rõ ràng kế hoạch chế tạo hạm đội tàu ngầm sử dụng năng lượng hạt nhân là một sự thay đổi lớn nhất trong định hướng chiến lược và quốc phòng của Úc trong nhiều thập kỷ. Đây được coi như một phần của mối quan hệ đối tác lịch sử với Mỹ và Anh nhằm chống lại sự ảnh hưởng của Trung Quốc. Tuy nhiên, liệu kế hoạch này có ảnh hưởng lên mối quan hệ giữa Úc và Pháp, cũng như với các đối tác thường xuyên khác hay không ? Luật sư-Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang :Chính phủ Úc đã công khai tuyên bố sẵn sàng thảo luận với Pháp để giải quyết khác biệt sau khi thỏa hiệp song phương bị hủy bỏ. Mặc dầu ở thời điểm này, chính phủ Úc từ chối xin lỗi (qua phát biểu của bộ trưởng Quốc phòng Úc, Peter Dutton). Thế nhưng, trong bang giao quốc tế, lời xin lỗi có thể được thể hiện dưới nhiều hình thức khác nhau. Nước Pháp cũng có thể trừng phạt kinh tế đối với Úc qua tiến trình thảo luận Hiệp định FTA với Liên Âu, nhưng để làm được điều này, trước hết Pháp cần phải thuyết phục 26 thành viên Liên Âu còn lại. Có thể nêu một vài phản ứng khác, trước hết là từ các nước láng giềng gần gũi. Mặc dù có quan hệ rất chặt chẽ về mặt kinh tế và hợp tác quốc phòng với Úc, New Zealand sẽ tiếp tục duy trì chính sách phi nguyên tử và không cho phép tàu chiến nguyên tử đến New Zealand. Trong khi đó, Indonesia không chính thức chống đối AUKUS, nhưng cũng bày tỏ quan ngại trước viễn tượng nước Úc có hạm đội tàu ngầm hạt nhân trong vòng 20 năm sắp tới. Vì lập trường này của Indonesia, thủ tướng Morrison đã phải hủy bỏ chuyến công du đến Jakarta. Ngoài ra, Malaysia cũng đã bày tỏ phản ứng tương tự như Indonesia. Trong khi đó, Việt Nam hình như chưa có phản ứng chính thức và công khai. Trên nguyên tắc, một nước Úc mạnh mẽ hơn và có ảnh hưởng nhiều hơn tại Biển Đông cũng có thể coi là thuận lợi cho Việt Nam. Vào thời điểm này, Singapore và Philippines là quốc gia Đông Nam Á có phản ứng tích cực với sự hình thành của AUKUS. RFI Tiếng Việt cảm ơn Luật sư-nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang. ********** * Ghi chú: Luật sư - Nhà báo Lưu Tường Quang có mối quan tâm đặc biệt đến các vấn đề chính trị, ngoại giao tại Úc và các nước trong khu vực Châu Á Thái Bình Dương. Ông là cựu Trưởng nhiệm SBS Radio (Head of SBS Radio), một cơ quan truyền thông đa văn hóa của Úc Châu.
The announcement of a new trilateral security partnership, AUKUS (Australia, UK and US), is a major event in the history of Australian foreign policy. Australia is planning to acquire nuclear-powered submarines, scrapping a contract with the French to build conventional subs in the process. AUKUS also plans to engage in new forms of security cooperation in other technology domains. This decision is both momentous and controversial. In this episode, Allan and Darren debate the merits of AUKUS, with Darren attempting to lay out a (theoretical) case in favour, while Allan offers his critique. The conversation is the strongest disagreement they've had in the history of the podcast, which makes for a lively debate! Hopefully the first of many in the months ahead as further details emerge and implementation begins. The logic and consequences of AUKUS speak to the biggest questions of Australian foreign policy, and this discussion helps reveal clear points of disagreement in how Allan and Darren assess Australia's strategic landscape. We thank Mitchell McIntosh for audio editing and Rory Stenning for composing our theme music. Relevant links Joint Leaders Statement on AUKUS, 16 September 2021: https://www.pm.gov.au/media/joint-leaders-statement-aukus Allan Gyngell, “Australia signs up to the Anglosphere”, Australian Financial Review, 17 September 2021: https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/australia-signs-up-to-the-anglosphere-20210916-p58s3x Natasha Kassam and Darren Lim, “Successful deterrence: Why AUKUS is good news for Taiwan”, The Sydney Morning Herald, 19 September 2021: https://www.smh.com.au/world/asia/successful-deterrence-why-aukus-is-good-news-for-taiwan-20210918-p58su7.html William Gale and Darrell West, “Is the US headed for another Civil War?”, Brookings Institution, 16 September 2021: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2021/09/16/is-the-us-headed-for-another-civil-war/ Hugh White, How to defend Australia (La Trobe University Press, 2019): https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/how-defend-australia Oriana Skylar Mastro, “The Taiwan Temptation: Why Beijing Might Resort to Force”, Foreign Affairs, July/August 2021: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/china/2021-06-03/china-taiwan-war-temptation Rory Medcalf, “Australia crosses a strategic Rubicon”, Australian Financial Review, 16 September 2021: https://www.afr.com/policy/foreign-affairs/australia-crosses-a-strategic-rubicon-20210916-p58s2y Editorial Board, “What to make of China's drive towards ‘common prosperity'”, East Asia Forum, 20 September 2021: https://www.eastasiaforum.org/2021/09/20/what-to-make-of-chinas-drive-towards-common-prosperity/ Kevin Rudd, “Xi Jinping's pivot to the state”, Address to the Asia Society, New York, 8 September 2021: https://asiasociety.org/policy-institute/xi-jinpings-pivot-state Sinica Podcast, “What's the deal with the Red New Deal?”, 16 September 2021: https://supchina.com/podcast/whats-the-deal-with-the-red-new-deal/ The Ezra Klein Show, Interview with Annie Murphy Paul, New York Times, 20 July 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/20/podcasts/transcript-ezra-klein-interviews-annie-murphy-paul.html The Ezra Klein Show, Interview with L.M. Sacasas, New York Times, 3 August 2021: https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/03/opinion/ezra-klein-podcast-lm-sacasas.html
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.
We keep up to date on the War consent manufacturing machine, chat about ACIC's claim that encryption is for criminals, and follow up on the jobseeker dob-in hotline. Assault update The cop who beat up a Blak kid 11 months ago has been charged with assault. We talked about this back in episode 22. War chat Scott Morrison doesn’t know why Australia should go to war with China. Chinese foreign ministry spokesman Lijian Zhao, calls Australian politicians the “real troublemakers”. In the Saturday Paper, Hugh White likens Australian politicians to the the statesmen of 1914. Encryption is for criminals The Australian Criminal Intelligence Commission thinks that all encryption is for criminals. Former PM Malcolm Turnbull confirmed that he uses encrypted messaging apps. Former Attorney General George Brandis was very confused by what “metadata” is. Cam Wilson’s article in Crikey on the online privacy bill. It’s dobseeker time The Dobseeker hotline is up and running. People turning down jobs is a problem that statistically doesn’t exist — of 1.1 million people on Jobseeker, only 114 turned down a job. The tax return graphs that show “where your taxes go”. The Australian Retail Association opposes the hotline too. Robodebt settlement Hundreds of people have officially objected to the Robodebt class action settlement. The Government is using the same data matching approach as Robodebt, and applying it to Jobkeeper. Actions Join the Australian Unemployed Workers Union. Sign the petition to Save the Inks. Come to the RAHUGALA on May 22! Emergency action Protest the colonial violence being committed against the Palestinian people. Rallies across Australia: Melbourne (May 15th), Sydney (May 15th), Brisbane (May 14th), Perth (May 14th).
Bookoccino's Jane Perlez (NYT) interviews Hugh White to discuss the role of a divided America and a rising China in the Asia-Pacific as well as many of the themes contained in his groundbreaking 2019 book "How to Defend Australia."Can Australia defend itself in the Asian century? How seriously ought we take the risk of war? Do we want to remain a middle power? What kind of strategy, and what Australian Defence Force, do we need? Hugh White AO is an Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre of the Australian National University in Canberra.
He says Indonesia is the most promising potential strategic partner because of its size and location.
Coronavirus has shut international borders, closed borders within Australia, forced countries to isolate, brought an end to global mobility, and put globalism itself into reverse. How do we prevent a rise in xenophobia, authoritarianism and isolationism and a lurch toward cold war conflict?
Coronavirus has shut international borders, closed borders within Australia, forced countries to isolate, brought an end to global mobility, and put globalism itself into reverse. How do we prevent a rise in xenophobia, authoritarianism and isolationism and a lurch toward cold war conflict?
Coronavirus has shut international borders, closed borders within Australia, forced countries to isolate, brought an end to global mobility, and put globalism itself into reverse. How do we prevent a rise in xenophobia, authoritarianism and isolationism and a lurch toward cold war conflict?
While politicians and pundits talk JobKeeper and JobSeeker, almost 2.5 million people may soon be living in poverty.
As China asserts its power within Hong Kong, and the region struggles with the impact of COVID-19, does Australia need to start thinking about supporting our closest regional neighbours? And where is COVID-19 policy heading, back at home?
The result of the Eden-Monaro ByElection appeared difficult to call; and last week's Defence Strategic Review was the most significant in asserting that Australia must be prepared to invest in our own regional security.
In this episode of COVIDcast, Sam Roggeveen, Lowy Institute’s Director of the International Security Program, sat down with Professor Hugh White to discuss the connection between the pandemic and the changing balance of power in Asia. Hugh White is an Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University. COVIDcast is a Lowy Institute pop-up podcast for anyone interested in understanding the effect of coronavirus on global politics. In each episode, Lowy Institute experts and invited guests discuss the implications of coronavirus for the world.
This week Allan and Darren try to step back from Covid-19, and have a long-planned conversation about the United States: its domestic politics, its role in the world, and the state of the alliance relationship with Australia. Allan begins by asking Darren for his assessment of what’s happening inside the US right now, amid an upcoming presidential election, the challenge of the coronavirus, and of course the non-stop news cycle that is the Trump presidency. How much will Covid-19 affect the presidential campaign? The two discuss the bipartisan hardening of attitudes towards China, the near-complete absence of US leadership during the Covid-19 crisis, and how much of the damage to Washington’s global reputation might be washed away if Trump loses in November. Turning to the alliance, Allan draws upon his recent book—Fear of Abandonment—to provide background and context to the bilateral relationship from Australia’s perspective. Darren wonders whether the alliance matters much as a formal treaty, or whether the shared interests and values of the two nations are sufficient both to sustain cooperation, and draw them together in a crisis. Next, Allan analyses Lowy poll data showing that Australians trust the United States less, but still seem to agree that we need the alliance. Looking ahead, what will the likely frictions be between Canberra and Washington, and should Australia constantly be looking to do “more” to enhance the relationship? Thinking about the practice of Australian foreign policy, is managing the alliance relationship different to managing relations with China? And finally, do we know enough now to make an assessment of the future capability and resolve of the United States to be active in our region, as Hugh White’s recent book argues we must? As always, we invite our listeners to email us at this address: australia.world.pod@gmail.com We welcome feedback, requests and suggestions. You can also contact Darren on twitter @limdarrenj We thank AIIA intern Maddie Gordon for her help with research and audio editing, XC Chong for research support, and Rory Stenning for composing our theme music. Relevant links Allan Gyngell, Fear of Abandonment: Australia in the World since 1942: https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/fear-abandonment Joe Biden, “Why America must lead again: Rescuing U.S. foreign policy after Trump”, Foreign Affairs, January 2020: https://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/united-states/2020-01-23/why-america-must-lead-again Natasha Kassam, Lowy Institute Poll 2019: https://www.lowyinstitute.org/publications/lowy-institute-poll-2019 Charles Edel and John Lee, “The future of the US-Australia alliance in an era of great power competition”, United States Studies Centre, 13 June 2019: https://www.ussc.edu.au/analysis/the-future-of-the-us-australia-alliance-in-an-era-of-great-power-competition Michael Green and Andrew Shearer, “Countering China’s militarization of the Indo-Pacific”, War on the Rocks, 23 April 2018: https://warontherocks.com/2018/04/countering-chinas-militarization-of-the-indo-pacific/ Hugh White, How to defend Australia: https://www.blackincbooks.com.au/books/how-defend-australia Ezra Klein Show, Interview with Evan Osnos: https://www.vox.com/2020/3/31/21200192/coronavirus-china-donald-trump-the-ezra-klein-show Peter Hessler “The Peace Corps Breaks Ties with China’, The New Yorker, 9 March 2020: https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2020/03/16/the-peace-corps-breaks-ties-with-china Peter Hessler, River Town: Two Years on the Yangtze: https://www.harpercollins.com/9780060855024/river-town/ Flow State (newsletter): https://flowstate.substack.com/
Has China lost Taiwan? We discuss the stunning election win of Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan earlier this month. Has China lost Taiwan for good? Or does the election just make military action more likely? Hugh White, Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies ANU. Nastasha Kassam, Research Fellow, Diplomacy and Public Opinion Program, Lowy Institute. The man who mapped the world. It’s 250 years since Captain Cook first planted the British flag on Australian soil, but according to a new book most of us still don’t know the full story. Peter Fitzsimmons, author: James Cook: The story behind the man who mapped the world
Has China lost Taiwan? We discuss the stunning election win of Tsai Ing-wen in Taiwan earlier this month. Has China lost Taiwan for good? Or does the election just make military action more likely? Hugh White, Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies ANU. Nastasha Kassam, Research Fellow, Diplomacy and Public Opinion Program, Lowy Institute. The man who mapped the world. It’s 250 years since Captain Cook first planted the British flag on Australian soil, but according to a new book most of us still don’t know the full story. Peter Fitzsimmons, author: James Cook: The story behind the man who mapped the world
How to Put a "Twist" in Your Brand with Julie Cottineau (Archive) Julie Cottineau is the Founder and CEO of BrandTwist, a brand consultancy group that helps entrepreneurs and corporations build stronger, more profitable brands. Prior to launching her own business, she was the VP of Brand at Richard Branson's Virgin Group, overseeing branding strategy for new and established Virgin companies in North America. About the Interview: Ever wonder how Richard Branson manages to shake things up every time, in so many different industries? Julie Cottineau, spent 5 years as the VP of Brand for Virgin in North America helping to grow this iconic brand. Now the best-selling author of TWIST: How Fresh Perspectives Build Breakthrough Brands (Panoma Press 2016), Founder & CEO of BrandTwist will show you how TWIST your non profit's brand for maximum impact. Fresh ideas come from looking at old problems from new perspectives. In this podcast, Julie will teach you how to: Go beyond “me-too” marketing, and get stand out Make the most of every brand touch-point – large and small Connect with target more deeply to create loyal brand ambassadors Walk away with tangible new ideas for your organization Why nonprofits should care about brand A unique, compelling brand can make or break even the strongest, most worthy enterprise. Once you understand the true nature of your brand, you achieve clarity and focus. You are in a much better position to serve the cause and the people you're really passionate about. Literally, it can change a life. Your charity, church or synagogue needs a strong brand – one with a TWIST. The TWIST is your unique story that will help you stand out, get the attention your good work deserves and build a loyal community of followers, donors, and volunteers. Read the Interview Transcript Hugh Ballou: Welcome to The Nonprofit Exchange. It's Hugh Ballou and Russell David Dennis. Russell, how are you out there in Denver, mile high Colorado? Russell Dennis: The sun is shining, but you step outside and it's very cold. I'm having Northern Maine flashbacks with these single digit temperatures here. Hugh: We are recording in the wintertime. People listen at all places. It might be warm in the other hemisphere, and it might be summer in the northern hemisphere when you listen to it. But the message is that we give you the techniques and strategies and information. It doesn't have a season. It's stuff you can use any time. This is a real important topic today, like all of them, but we tend to skip over this thing of branding. We tend to think it's a picture, a logo. We got a brand, we got a logo. We are going to explore the different facets of branding and give you a top level view of what it looks like and what it is. One of the best people I know has this great book out called Twist. Julie Cottineau. Did I say it right, Julie? Julie Cottineau: Close enough. Hugh: I have a good memory, but it's short. Thank you for being our guest today. Tell the people listening a little bit about you and a little bit about brand twist. Julie: I think I have been branding since I was eight years old. When I was a little girl growing up in Massachusetts, my parents wouldn't let me have a pet because my brother was allergic. I went out in my garden and took a rock and put it in a Cool Whip container. I poked holes in it so it would be able to breathe. I invented the pet rock. Two years later, some guy named Gary Dahl in San Francisco invented the official pet rock because he was also fed up with regular pets. He was in a bar after work, he worked in advertising, and all his friends were leaving to feed their cats and walk their dogs. He said there has to be a pet with no hassle, so he created the official pet rock for no hassle. I created the non-allergic pet rock. Ever since then, I have been creating solutions with a twist from a different angle. Hugh: Twist. How did that name come about? Julie: That's another story. I was working as a branding consultant for Interbrand, a large branding agency. I was traveling all over the country. I was at Newark Airport one day. I looked out of the window and saw this 747 with these golden arches on the tailspin. I stopped in my tracks and thought, That would be a really interesting airline. It would be different than all these other airlines that had the same color seats and stewardesses and the same experience. A McDonalds airline, maybe I could buy a regular economy seat and supersize it to a premium seat. I looked up again and realized that it was a mirage. It was actually the reflection of the food court sign on the window, and there happened to be a plane. You following me? It was a hallucination. But it started me thinking, if you are in the airline business and want to break through, stop worrying about your other airline competitors and twist with other brands. Find brands that you admire that are doing cool things outside of your category, and twist those lessons with your brand. That started it all. Hugh: We put a snazzy title for this. The top mistakes. What are some of the things that people do that you wish they wouldn't do? Julie: We put the top three mistakes; it was hard to keep it to three. Hugh: I'll bet. Julie: You can grow to four. These were mistakes nonprofits are making. The first one is what we were just talking about: not really understanding what a brand is. In fact, confusing your branding with your marketing. That is a big mistake. Your marketing is how you get your message out there, but your branding is your fundamental story. What are you about? Why should people care? All great stories, if we think about our favorite movies and books, they have a twist. They have something unexpected in the plot. The number one mistake is stop saying if I only had ten times the marketing budget, I could build my nonprofit. Well, I could throw 20 times the marketing budget at you, but if your brand isn't in shape, your fundamental story of who you are, who you serve, and what's different about you, then it's a waste of money. Hugh: It's a waste of money. What happens when- I guess one of the fundamental branding issues with a nonprofit is the word “nonprofit.” It really puts us in a negative twist of scarcity thinking and nonprofit, we gotta have profit to be able to run this church or synagogue or community charity. How do we start out on this journey of creating our brand? Talk about brand image, brand promise, brand identity. There is a lot of facets to this besides the logo. Julie: Your brand is not your logo. Your brand is fundamentally your story, and your logo and name should help reflect that. I think a very unique challenge of nonprofits is the second mistake. They really try to welcome everybody. People who work in the nonprofit world are attracted to it because there is this inclusive instinct. Branding is actually about choices. If you have a page of your website that tries to tell everybody about everything that you do, you will connect with no one. It's like the twist on AT&T: reach out and touch someone. It's like reach out and touch no one. What I say the most important thing about branding is be clear on who you want to serve and the issues you want to promote. Be very choiceful. Narrow them down. Most nonprofit websites look like someone threw spaghetti up on the website and wanted to see what sticks. Branding is like an onion. Just tell me a little bit for me to get to know you, and then I will keep peeling the layers back to continue to get to know you. Less is more. Particularly in nonprofit branding. Hugh: Russell, we see lots of funky things, don't we? Russell: Yeah, it gets really interesting. If your target is everyone, you're marketing to no one. What it's about is really having people understand what it is that you do. A confused mind always says no. From a perspective of nonprofit, what is it precisely that a brand should do for a nonprofit? What is that main benefit that they get? I don't think people always understand the benefit in taking time to actually build a brand. What is that main benefit, and how does that really empower nonprofits? Julie: The main benefit is your brand promise. Getting clear on your brand promise. Getting specific on your brand promise. It's not we want to help people, or we want to make everyone feel included, or we want to make life better. Those brand promises are not gonna stick because not that they're not valid, but they're just so overused. It's like when Charlie Brown hears the teacher talk, and all he hears is “wah wah wah.” When I work with nonprofit clients, what problem are we trying to solve? Can we get really specific on that problem? Not that we want to give people shelter or help homeless people, but keep digging deeper. We want to help people feel at home. We want to help people feel that they can realize who they are in their minds versus how other people are seeing them. We keep digging. We get to one brand promise. The main thing we do with that brand promise is we don't validate it by looking at all the other nonprofits in our space, and we don't create it by committee, which is hard for nonprofits. Nonprofits love committees. What we try to do is say if there is a leader of the nonprofit, whether it's the president of the board or head of marketing, they need to own the brand. Everybody else can contribute their ideas, but at some point, someone needs to make a decision and get everybody on board. Versus we need a direction that everybody can live with, but no one hates. That is the definition of weak branding, when you go to the lowest common denominator. Hugh: She has good sound bites here, doesn't she, Russ? Russell: Brilliant. It's quite a field. I have done some marketing myself. I started out working in market research and sold some advertising on television and in print. But that doesn't really speak to brand. I was just fascinated by why people do some things. Describe to us what attracted you to the career of helping others build brands. How did that particular piece of marketing expertise jump out at you? Julie: I've always liked storytelling. I studied communications and creative writing. When I was little, my rockstar was Judy Bloom. I won a contest at the library to go hear her speak. To me, that was winning the Super Bowl. I was so excited by it. I've always been interested in storytelling. Branding is a very unique way to tell your story. I am in my office. I like to use all the different tools that I have. My brand is purple because it's the twist of red and blue. I tell my story not just in words, but also in images. You will never see me on stage without some purple on. The walls of the office are purple. The cover on my book is a twist of pink and purple. Nonprofits, one of the mistakes I see them making is they use stock photography because it's cheap, and I understand that. But they build websites. Don't invest a lot of money in them, but build them with a lot of images. The minute they set up their nonprofit, they are saying we're just like everybody else. There are inexpensive ways to take stock photography but frame it differently, treat it with a different color. We learn those lessons by looking at brands like Tiffany's. Tiffany's is a great brand to twist with. If someone gives you a blue Tiffany's box, I say to my husband, it almost doesn't matter what's in the box. The blue is their brand. Tiffany's robin egg blue. It sets up this expectation of an experience. I think that nonprofits should look at things like that, like owning a color. As soon as you see the red Target ad, you know right away, even if you don't hear the name and only see a slice of the logo, you know right away it's a Target ad. Hugh: It's funny you bring that up. They are changing their colors in Lynchburg to white. I don't know where I am. I was so into the red. The doors are still red, and people still wear the red and khaki. You were vice president of Richard Branson's Virgin. What are some of the important things you learned from that experience? That's powerful. Julie: It was an amazing experience. I think the biggest thing that I learned from Richard is not to be afraid to fail. He has an expression, “Fail harder.” Another one he has that is hopefully ok for this podcast, and is the title of one of his books is, “Screw it, let's do it.” If you have a good idea, and it feels like it's going to make an impact, don't test it to death, don't run it through 10 different committees, just try it. It might be successful, and it might not be. We know that we learn the most from the things that go wrong. It really opened me up to being more adventurous. I came home from my corporate job. I had been there five years, and I was having a great time. I said to my husband, “Screw it, let's do it. I am going to start my own company.” He said, “I don't think that's what that means. We have two children to put through college.” I said, “No, that's exactly what that means. I have an idea to create a branding consultancy and a book and a learning program, and I'm going to do it. If it's successful, great. If it's not, I am going to learn a lot.” That's what I did seven years ago actually. Hugh: Wow, you're still there doing it. Your book is called Twist: How Fresh Perspectives Build Breakthrough Brands. I remember you kindly sent me a copy to preview it. I think I did a respectable interview a couple years ago on the Orchestrating Success podcast for business leaders. This is a wholly different focus today. Really it's not. Good branding, good leadership, good marketing is probably the same. We do have a lot of hang-ups when we are working for a nonprofit that we shouldn't have. Where can people get your book? Julie: You can get it on Amazon. The easiest place. Hugh: And the color makes it stand out. I was amazed, Russell, that she finds a way to twist that word “twist” into pretty much every page of that book. It's phenomenal how this plays out. Before Russ goes into another question, I want to ask you. You do board retreats. There is a tension between different perspectives and an apparent contrast. When you have this side and this side, when you start looking at the intersection, there is some real finite truth or wisdom. We have a different outcome, but we also have ownership at some level. When you do a board retreat, I would assume it's a branding retreat, talk about the dynamics of how the board plays into the decision and how it goes from the retreat to the final decision. That is where a lot of us get stuck. Julie: Board retreats are interesting dynamics. The first thing I do is get everybody out of whatever the location is, whether it's the church or synagogue, into a relaxed atmosphere where they can think differently, to use the apple. I also get them to start thinking about other brands. We don't think about our organization as a brand, as a story, as something unique. We get bogged down into that won't work, we tried that, I'm not sure about that. We have to remember that the people we are trying to engage, whether it's members, donors, or volunteers, they don't live in this box with only our brand. They live in the wider world with a wider brandscape. I ask the board members ahead of time, “What brands do you admire, and why?” If you admire Starbucks because it customizes your order or Nike because it motivates you or Uber because it helps you get around when you are on a business trip, why wouldn't you bring some of those qualities to your organization? Why wouldn't you twist some of those things? Why shouldn't our church or synagogue or nonprofit also be customized and seamless to use and have clever impactful messaging? When I get them to think beyond their nonprofit to his larger brandscape and twist those ideas, then it breaks through. We come up in a short amount of time with solutions we hadn't had for months and months of board meetings. The second part of your question is the trickier part, which is how do you move it forward? That is where I would say it shouldn't be a democracy. The president of the board or the head of the nonprofit should get the input of everybody. If they are in a position of leadership, they have to take the leadership and say, “I have listened to everybody. This is what we're going to do. You don't have to agree with it 100%, but you have to understand why we're doing it and help us tell the story to a larger group.” Russell: That's an interesting perspective. There is a tricky balance to strike as far as getting by it. Obviously, you want your people to go with that. Who exactly is brand twisting for? With nonprofits, you have multiple audiences. You have multiple constituencies. You have your board, volunteers, donors, other people who fund your work, staff. How do you make that marriage work for all of those different audiences? Who is twisting specifically for? How do you do that? Julie: I like to work in brand development committees. I just rebranded a school system. We created a brand development committee that had the superintendent as the leader. Ultimately, she is the leader of that brand. She had to buy into it. We had two members of the board represented, not all 12, just two. We had a few practitioners represented, so some principals and teachers. We had some staff, the people, if we were going to change the website, on a daily basis, who are going to have to program it, and things like that. We had a committee of about 8 or 10 people. We worked in that committee and got through surveys and other strategic planning input from the community, parents and students. You can pull in input as data points, but don't make your committee 30 people sitting around a table. You're not going to get anything done. The 8-10 people worked on the branding solutions. We led them through the process. We committed as a group with the superintendent's opinion counting the most to the one recommendation we were going to go back to the school board and make, with a lot of great rationale of how we got through the journey. It worked because we had a process. We had representation. Ultimately, we went with a recommendation and a clear rationale on that recommendation. Russell: When it comes to communication, eight people is about the span of control. Once you get beyond eight, the wheels start to come off the wagon. Julie: What we did was when we rebranded, we didn't ask everybody, “Do you like this?” Branding is like naming your kids. You never tell anybody your intended names until the birth announcement comes out because all those opinions won't be helpful. It's your opinion as the parent that really counts. We named the new logo and gave it a story. We created a video that explained the change. We launched internally first so all the teachers beyond the committee got the preview first. Then we went out to the larger group. It wasn't like the brand launch was overnight. It wasn't just throwing up a logo and saying, “What do you think?” It was a really carefully crafted story that we told over and over for about a year until everybody understood it and got it and got behind it. Russell: One of the things that you mentioned in the book is that people have blinders on around branding. What is it that you mean by blinders? How do we work around these? Julie: It's like a horse, if you're trying to lead a racehorse out and put the blinders on so they can't see anything beyond them, it keeps them going forward. But the downside of that in branding is we work in nonprofit that has to do with cancer. We spend all our time looking at nonprofits that have to do with cancer and we worry about being seen as legitimate. Because we worry about being seen as legitimate, we end up being very safe but also using the same words and images as everybody else. That is what I mean by brand blinders, is only thinking in your category. If you lift your head up, I mean honestly your next board meeting, have it in a Starbucks. That would be a good use of everybody's time, or your favorite restaurant, or your favorite brand experience. Say, Look around. Why are we spending twice as much on a coup of coffee? Why is this an experience that we all come to? Why is everybody else hanging out here? What are they doing? Look how they are naming the baristas. Look how they are using the color green. Look how they are creating an atmosphere of welcome. What are the specific things that they're doing to make us feel like this is not just a cup of coffee, but an engaging experience? How can we twist those with our nonprofit? Russell: What do you think are some of the more common mistakes that nonprofit leaders have? I imagine that these blinders have a lot to do with it. But what are the most common ones? Julie: Sticking within the category is a really common one. Another thing is taking too much input, trying to do too many things, like I mentioned. Most nonprofit websites, the front page will give you a headache because they are talking about everything. Setting a clear vision and using that as a funnel. I would say there is some overlooked brand touchpoints that nonprofits should think about. In my book, I talk about these vomit bag moments, which came from Virgin Atlantic, which was one of the brands that I looked after as part of Virgin Management. Virgin Atlantic did a very clever thing. They had these air sickness bags, which they had to provide anyway. It's an FAA requirement. They have to be in every seat pocket for every flight over six hours, I think. Most airlines, well, what color are they for most airlines? Hugh: White? Julie: White, plain, no message. What Virgin Atlantic did was brand them. They made them red, which was the brand color, and they wrote a little story on them about how flying used to be fun, people used to get dressed up, and what happened to flying in terms of taking away all the peanuts. They twisted it back to a story about on how Virgin Atlantic, you will always feel great flying. I say to for-profit and nonprofit clients is: What are your vomit bag moments? What are the things you're doing anyway as part of your brand experience, but you could add a twist? Whether it's an invoice that you send, whether it's a thank-you note, whether it's a gift, on-hold music. If you have a phone calling as part of your nonprofit. Those are the little moments where you could add something that supports the brand and stands out. Hugh: When did this word “twist” come in your present thinking? How did that get so deeply embedded in your being? Julie: I think it was that airline experience. The McDonalds airline, I needed to look in a different way. I needed to look at things from a different angle. The more I started using it, the more people played it back to me as something that was helpful to them. Hugh: I like how she uses it instead of other words and twisting ideas into something that is unique. Part of what you all are talking about is back when you started this interview today, who do we serve? It's our avatar, so to speak. Russell talked about marketing. We have to have a target. We want to attract certain people. We tend to think everyone needs us. How do you help your clients narrow down to that specific person that they want to attract? Julie: We create brand avatars. We look at up to three targets, and we create personas for each of them. Instead of saying, if you're a medical nonprofit, it's health care practitioners, we will say it's Dr. Bob, and we will give Bob a backstory, and what keeps him up at night, and who lives in his household, creating a character in a novel. We will do that up to three times. What we're looking for though is to turn this target into real people with real problems we can help solve. Hugh: When we're talking to a specific person, we're talking to the person who is sitting in the community nonprofit trying to figure out how to attract donors and volunteers and the next board member. Russell hit on it earlier, he says a confused mind says no. How many times have we had people ask for donations and board and all they get is excuses because all that person sees is I'm going to get sucked into this vortex? Russell: Endless time commitment and bottomless blank checks. People aren't clear. The brand is important. The one question I have about brand is is a brand what you make it, is a brand forever? Are there appropriate times to look at it to see what you have is outdated or not working? Julie: That's a great question. I think you do need to update your story every once in a while, or at least take a look at it. I do a lot of rebranding, if organizations merge, when there are major changes in the segment that organization serves, when there is new leadership. I think it's a very worthwhile exercise every five years or so to check in and say, “Is that story we're telling now relevant to the people we're trying to serve? Is it relevant to who we are at this moment? Have we become something different?” Even if you go through one of those exercises and don't change anything with the outwardly facing part of your brand, you will have validation that you're telling the right story. I think that's a really important exercise to do. I would say if you look at great brands in the for-profit world, like Coca-Cola for example, their core brand promise has always been about happiness. But every once in a while, they will update their advertising. “We'd like to teach the world to sing,” or “Open a Coke and a smile,” or “Happiness.” The fundamentals are there, but there is a bit of a refresh. People get excited about the refresh. People pay attention to brand refreshes or rebranding. It's a great opportunity to get out in front of your targets and your donors and say, “Let us tell you what's new. You might have noticed we made some changes. It's not because we just needed cosmetic changes, but our vision is evolving. We wanted the brand to reflect that vision.” Hugh: We've talked around these terms. Let's clarify. You've used the phrase “brand promise” a few times. There is a brand image, brand identity, brand promise. There are different facets. How do you segment the different parts of a brand? Julie: Your brand identity is everything. It's the way you show up, the way you present yourself to the world, not just in your logo and website, but in the way your people behave, etc. I look at it as a house. The brand promise is the roof. That is the main thing you stand for. There is a diagram in my book of the roof of a house. That is what you enable. If you look at Nike, for example, they sell sneakers, but their brand promise is “Just do it.” Supporting that roof, you have three brand pillars. Those are your values. Why should I believe that you're someone who can help me just do it? You have three pillars that support that. Hugh: When we're doing strategy, we nail down the problem we're solving. Why do we exist? What is our solution? What is our unique value proposition? What do we do that's different from others? Is that the building block to a brand? How does that fit into the branding that you do? Julie: Yeah, I think your unique value proposition is your brand twist. That is your brand promise. When I do it, I like to make them succinct and easy to remember. I'm not a big believer in mission, vision, values, 10 layers of the brand. When I do it, I answer four questions. The first is “Who are we trying to serve?” and dig into that psychographic. What are we promising them? That is your brand promise or your unique value proposition. Why should they believe us? That is your brand values. Who, what, why? The last question I answer is how, how do I bring it to life? What is my website? What is my tagline? What is the way I dress? What are the cuts of people I hire? One of the biggest mistakes I see for nonprofits and for-profits is they say, “We want to update our website.” If you are creating a new nonprofit, they are creating a new website. They go right to the how, how are we going to bring this to life? But they don't do the who, what, and why. They don't have a strategy. They spend hours and hours on versions of websites and logos, and they waste a ton of money. They think they'll just know it when I see it. It's not a great way to create a brand. You have to have a strategy. Once you have a strategy, the execution is actually pretty easy. Hugh: That's so common. Russ and I see that a lot. We had David Corbin on here a while back. David has a book called Brand Slaughter. We have seen that happen with another airline; we won't mention their name, but their initials are United. That one person destroyed the brand. It's happened a few times. But there are other companies where one person acted in a way that violated the way the company wanted to represent their value proposition and brand identity. What we do, we do values and principles. Part of that is how do we behave in the culture? How do we make decisions? Talk a minute about taking this brand promise we have and how to get people who are volunteers, board members, committee members represent that brand. We can violate that brand with our behavior, can't we? Julie: Yeah. You asked me what I learned from Richard Branson. That's the second biggest lesson besides taking chances. Your employees are the ambassadors of your brand. They bring the brand to life in their behavior. I do a lot of internal brand activation, meaning I train employees on the brand. I train them how to behave based on the brand. If our brand stands for teamwork, we actually look at all of our systems and evaluate where we are acting as a team and where we are breaking down. I had one client who was standing for teamwork, but we realized their office had an open plan with lots of cubicles. There were no nameplates. Somebody new to the team, it was taking them months to learn everybody's name. That's not a way to create a team. They'd see each other in the cafeteria, and they were embarrassed because they didn't know each other's names. Something as little as that. Definitely hiring. I use my brand values, even if I am hiring an intern. I ask them questions. Tell me a time that you twisted. Tell me about a time that you solved a problem from a different angle. Hiring, training, and rewarding on brand. Don't keep your brand values in a notebook somewhere. People will start really paying attention to them if they know their compensation or advancement is tied to them. Hugh: I just remembered when I was in high school, the twist was a dance. Russell, rescue me, will you? Russell: Thank god for the power of good video editors and sound editors. The first couple of months, I was co-hosting. This is Hugh, and old what's-his-name in Colorado somewhere. But it's important for people in the organization to have all the tools. If your organization is firing on all cylinders, even the person that comes in and sweeps the floor at night can talk to you about what that organization does and how it works. We have had good discussions. The brands that stick out in our minds are large, a lot of them larger than life. A lot of small nonprofits are resource-starved. They are listening to this, thinking, this is all well and good if you have 100 grand to throw at your marketing. But if you are like us, you're small and don't have a lot of resources, how do we build a brand? How do we bring this about with limited resources? Julie: Having a strong brand is even more important if you have limited resources. If you have limited resources, you can't afford to have things that don't tell a really tight story. I work with a lot of small businesses and nonprofits, 1-3-people sized companies. We spend that time on the brand promise and the brand pillars because that allows you to use every tool in the toolbox to tell the same story. Branding is harder, but more important, when you're smaller. It allows everything to work together. When I worked at Virgin, we actually spent way less than all of our competition on advertising. Way less. Virgin Atlantic spends way less than British Airways. But those ads would stand out, and they would create a loyal following. They would punch above their weight because they were very clear about who they were going after. The twist was very clear. What was different about the experience was very clear. Russell: What are some of the tools as a bare minimum that someone in the nonprofit should have to be able to talk about their organization in a compelling way? Are there one or two tools that you would say are absolutely essential? How important is it that these are simple and easy to use? Julie: I think your website is probably the biggest tool. For good or for bad, people come in, even if they are going to meet you in person, they will look at your website. Your brand walks in the room for you, and it sticks around after you're gone. I think having a smaller website, one or two pages, that are just super clear and really visually engaging, is important. The same thing for business cards. As you said, a confused mind doesn't remember anything. Keep it really simple, really streamlined. Your website, your business card, and your presentation. You can do a lot with live presentations. But talk on your elevator pitch. Have your elevator pitch be concise. Help people understand what you do in three floors, not in 35 floors. That comes from being clear on your brand and practicing it. I was telling Hugh at the beginning that I have done a lot of work lately with personal branding. I am teaching a class at Stanford with Tyra Banks who has built a huge personal brand as an entrepreneur and model. I think that nonprofit leaders need to embody their personal brands, and show up as their brands, whether that is wearing a color, a tie, or a pin. Don't go around saying your nonprofit is caring or innovative and not acting that way. One reason Richard Branson has been so successful is his business brand is about shaking things up, but his personal brand is about shaking things up. He spends a lot of time- he is the most followed executive on Twitter. He tweets about business and also life. He is frustrated about things, and is finding new ways to solve old problems. Russell: I follow Richard Branson on LinkedIn. He has a lot of interesting things to say. A lot of people think about them. I think most of us have interesting things to say. A lot of people who may not be clear on how interesting the stuff they have to say is, or how to put it together. We talked about the people of stories. How do you work with people who are having difficulty finding their voice, what it is they stand for, what it is they want to communicate? Julie: The first thing I do is offer brand health checks. These are the best place to start. You wouldn't go into your doctor and say, hey, help me fix everything. You go in once a year and say, “These are the things I feel good about. Here are some of the things I think need attention.” We offer these brand health checks through the website. What we do is spend some time asking you some questions. We look at your materials, whether it is your LinkedIn profile or your website. We will triage: What are the areas you need to look at? Maybe your brand promise is pretty good, but you are not expressing it right. Maybe your targeting is all over the place. Maybe you need to use social media in a slightly different way, or colors in a slightly different way. These brand health checks are a great place to start. Hugh: In your book, you talk about brand blinders. Can you say more about that? Julie: Sure. Those are when you are looking in your category and not outside of your category for inspiration. Taking off your brand blinders means that you are looking beyond your segment to the larger world for inspiration. Hugh: We want to make sure you highlight this offer. You say you work with a lot of individuals on personal branding, small businesses, and nonprofits. We have probably a mixture of all of those that follow us and listen to us and watch this. Where do they go first off for this brand checkup? Julie: We have two diagnostic products. One is a brand health check. That is 60 minutes. That is if you want to talk about your overall nonprofit. Go to BrandTwist.com. Get Started. Brand Health Check. If you are interested just in your personal brand, we have a personal brand plan call. That is half an hour. That is very similar, but we will ask you more personal questions. That is great for people who want help with their leadership, who are changing careers, who are job seekers. We talk a lot to recent graduates who want to get into the nonprofit or another space. That is for people who want to focus on their personal brand. But all roads lead to BrandTwist.com. We will have a special promotion for your listeners. Hugh: You are? Behind your head, it says Brand School. What is that? Julie: Brand School is our online school that we offer a few times a year for small businesses and nonprofits. It's a 10-week program. We get you all of the consulting that a big company would get, but we do it in groups of 10-12 students at a time. More heavy lifting on your side. It becomes more affordable and also creates a community of entrepreneurs. Hugh: Do you have a blog or podcast or anything people can tune into to get more of Julie? Julie: Yeah. If you go to BrandTwist.com, we have a blog that we update all the time. I am pretty active on Twitter as well. @JCottin on Twitter. You can Google Twist. We have good branding. There is lots of information that comes up. Hugh: Yay. Russell, why don't you have another question? He's got one cooking, I'm sure. Russell: All those wrinkles in my forehead are just common creases. They don't have any particular significance. For those of you who are watching this now, there is a branding twist school coming up. A semester in a couple weeks. If this is something of interest to you, look at it. One of the things I saw as I was looking through this website, which has a wealth of information, there were some things we didn't talk about. Julie says there are three mission-critical reasons why you should have a twist. I'd like for her to share those if she could. Julie: The first is a twist will help you stand out. I think it's really hard to stand out today in the competition. The second is bringing a twist to your business means you will have more fun. It's hard work. We should be having fun and doing things differently. I would say the third thing is think about your personal twist. Many of us will change careers or work for different nonprofits over the course of our lives. Paying attention to your personal and professional twists will always serve you. A lot of us are serial entrepreneurs or serial nonprofit professionals. You want to build not just a reputation for your nonprofit, but also your own reputation. Hugh: We talked about the symphony a little bit. There is a composite here. Maybe that's the wrong word. But you have the symphony, which needs a brand. We have 750 orchestras in this country. I bet you most of them want to play classics, so they want people to come. They complain they are not attracting millennials at all. There is a real interest in millennials for authentic historical church and culture. The orchestra has its identity, but the conductor also has an identity. That is the person that shapes the sound of the orchestra and is the figurehead for the orchestra, even though there is a huge culture. Is that a contrast or a conflict? Is there a synergy? There are lots of examples, but I tend to know a little bit about this one. Julie: I think there should be a synergy. I think it's great that you have an organization that has its identity. They don't have to be identical, but there should be a synergy between the face of the organization and the group. The other thing I would say is that orchestra who is looking to attract millennials, this is a great example. Take off your brand blinders. Stop looking at what other orchestras are doing. Look at brands that are attracting millennials. Twist those lessons. Hugh: Whoa. What do you think of that, Russ? Russell: I think that she is absolutely spot-on. Only Virgin Airways can be Virgin Airways. Everybody can't be exactly the same. When you are focused on what everybody else is doing, you are probably leaving your own unique talents on the table. It helps to go through a process. We lead people through a process with our own success framework, and brand twisting will help you do that as well. It's looking through that unique lens of what you bring to the table. Hugh: Our SynerVision brand is based on creating synergy through the common vision. We know who we are. We know where we're going. We know who we want to influence. It not only builds the synergy on our team, but it's building the synergistic interaction with our audience, our supporters. *Sponsor message from SynerVision's Community for Community Builders* We are going to let Julie give you a final thought or challenge or tip as we close out this really helpful interview. Julie, thank you for such great information. Julie: My pleasure. I would say if you feel that your brand isn't as healthy as it should be because you should build the brand that your business deserves, then I'd love to talk to anybody listening to this. You can go to BrandTwist.com and look at our brand health check or personal brand plan. If you put in the code SVLF, then you will get 15% off any of our products, and you will go to the top of the queue in getting something scheduled. I would love to check up your health and support your community however I can. My final thought is your brand is your business, whether your business is for-profit or nonprofit. You can't separate the two. You can't say, I'm working on building the business over here, and the brand over there. Strong brands are connected. Your brand is your business. Make it a priority. Russell: Great. If you haven't visited this website, go check it out. BrandTwist.com. There are cool tools here. Don't think you have to trip over half a million dollars to do something about your brand. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices
Czy Chiny pokonają Amerykę w obecnej rywalizacji? A może są jedynie "papierowym smokiem"? Jaka jest rola Australii, Indii i Japonii w Południowej Azji? Czy Donald Trump i Xi Jinping będą chcieli podzielić się władzą? Na te pytania odpowiada prof. Hugh White, gość Warsaw Security Forum 2019, w nowym #PodcastNK z cyklu "Nowy Dziwny Świat". Hugh White – profesor studiów strategicznych w Centrum Studiów Strategicznych i Obrony Australijskiego Uniwersytetu w Canberze, wieloletni analityki ds. obrony i wywiadu. W latach 1995-2000 był zastępcą sekretarza ds. strategii i wywiadu w australijskim Departamencie Obrony. Wesprzyj Nową Konfederację: https://nowakonfederacja.pl/wesprzyj-... Zapraszamy do śledzenia Nowej Konfederacji na pozostałych kanałach społecznościowych: Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/NowaKonfeder... Twitter: https://twitter.com/NKonfederacja Materiał sfinansowano przez Narodowy Instytut Wolności ze środków Programu Rozwoju Organizacji Obywatelskich na lata 2018-2030.
This week marks 80 years since Hitler invaded Poland, but are there lessons from history about the rise of China? On this week’s Democracy Sausage podcast we talk to Hugh White about a new cold war, the nuclear taboo, find out how to defend Australia, and ask whether the China choice has already been made for us. Mark Kenny is a Senior Fellow 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. Marija Taflaga is a lecturer in the ANU School of Politics and International Relations. Her major research is on political parties and particularly the Liberal Party of Australia. She has previously worked in the Australian Parliamentary Press Gallery as a researcher at The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age. Hugh White is professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University in Canberra and author of How to Defend Australia. 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. 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 published in partnership with The Australian National University. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In this episode of Uncharted, Mission Hills life group leader Hugh White and host Neil Eukel unpack Galatians 5 in our series, “True or False: Uncovering the Gospel in Galatians.” Hugh and Neil explore how we can walk in the balance between legalism and self-indulgence.
For years, Australian policymakers have balanced China's desire for an enhanced regional role with our desire for U.S. protection. However, contrary to the Canberra consensus, there is going to be an intense strategic rivalry between our major trading partner and our major strategic ally. According to John Mearsheimer, one of America's leading foreign-policy thinkers, Washington will not let China become the dominant military power in the region without putting up a serious fight. In these circumstances, it's naïve to think that Australia can sit on the sidelines and get the best of both worlds: unconstrained trade with China while keeping the U.S. security umbrella over its head. Canberra must support Uncle Sam. However, Australia's future will be dominated by China, says one of Australia's leading strategic thinkers Hugh White. Treasury forecasts show that the Chinese economy will be about 80 per cent bigger than America's within a dozen years. In this environment, Canberra must prepare for the new strategic terrain in the wake of America's declining leadership, and we would be unwise to support Washington in a confrontation with China that America probably cannot win. John Mearsheimer is professor of Political Science at the University of Chicago and author of "The Great Delusion: Liberal Dreams and International Realities" (Yale University Press). Hugh White is professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University in Canberra and author of Quarterly Essay “Without America: Australia in the new Asia” (November 2017). Follow the CIS on Twitter @CISOZ or find us on Facebook 'The Centre for Independent Studies' for more updates. http://www.cis.org.au
For a long time Australia has taken it for granted that America can uphold the old US-led regional order by containing China’s bid to become the region’s leading power – which would keep us safe from any major threats from China. That is no longer something that is assured. Find out more about the La Trobe Asia Brief on Australia-China relations. www.latrobe.edu.au/news/announceme…china-relations Guest: Professor Hugh White (Emeritus, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) Recorded on 18 July, 2019.
Australia's sphere of influence
As China seeks to assert dominance in East Asia and the Western Pacific, Australia finds itself wedged between two powers and ill prepared to deal with change. Hugh White on why playing both sides is not a policy and how Scott Morrison accidentally upped the stakes.Guest: Professor of strategic studies at the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at ANU Hugh White. Background reading:In denial in Australian Foreign AffairsThe Saturday PaperThe MonthlyFor more information on today’s episode, visit 7ampodcast.com.au. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
For decades in Australia we have assumed that America will prevent any serious emerging military threats to Australia, or defend us from them if they do, but now America's power in Asia is waning and those old assumptions are no longer valid. So what now? We have never really tried to defend ourselves independently, but now we may have no choice. Can it be done, and if so how? What do we really need to defend? What forces do we need? How much would they cost and how serious are the threats? Speakers: Professor Hugh White (Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) Dr Euan Graham (Executive Director of La Trobe Asia) The Melbourne launch of How to Defend Australia by Hugh White, published by La Trobe University Press. Presented at the State Library of Victoria on 17 July, 2019.
For decades in Australia we have assumed that America will prevent any serious emerging military threats to Australia, or defend us from them if they do, but now America's power in Asia is waning and those old assumptions are no longer valid. So what now? We have never really tried to defend ourselves independently, but now we may have no choice. Can it be done, and if so how? What do we really need to defend? What forces do we need? How much would they cost and how serious are the threats? Speakers: Professor Hugh White (Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies, Strategic and Defence Studies Centre, Australian National University) Dr Euan Graham (Executive Director of La Trobe Asia) The Melbourne launch of How to Defend Australia by Hugh White, published by La Trobe University Press. Presented at the State Library of Victoria on 17 July, 2019.
Hugh White on the conundrum of how Australia can defend itself in the Asian century
The Lowy Institute hosted one of Australia’s most provocative public commentators, Professor Hugh White. Lowy Institute Senior Fellow Richard McGregor chaired a discussion on Professor White’s new book, How to Defend Australia. Over the past decade, Professor White has set the agenda of Australia’s China debate. This book will do the same for defence policy. Hugh White AO is Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University and author of The China Choice and the Quarterly Essay 39, Power Shift. He has served as an intelligence analyst with the Office of National Assessments, as a senior adviser to Defence Minister Kim Beazley and to 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. Richard McGregor, Lowy Institute Senior Fellow, is a leading expert on China’s political system and Australia’s relations with Asia. He is the author of The Party: The Secret World of China’s Communist Rulers and Asia’s Reckoning: China, Japan and the Fate of US Power in the Pacific Century. His Lowy Institute Paper, Xi Jinping: The Backlash, will be published in late July.
In this National Security Podcast extra, we speak to Professor Hugh White AO about his new book, How to Defend Australia. Hugh argues for a radical shift in the way we view America’s role in Asia, and that Australia can no longer count on US support should it find itself under the threat of being attacked. The discussion includes how China’s expanding economic and military power is dominating the region and what that means for the structure of Australia’s defence forces. As the region shifts and China flexes its military and economic muscles, how should Australia structure its national defence for the coming decades? Throughout his book, Hugh suggests that Australia should abandon its current plans for 12 French submarines and building 24 submarines, sell most of its newer vessels, and double the purchase of Joint Strike Fighter aircrafts. Little has set a fire under Australia’s national security community this much since his last book, The China Choice. Join us for an in-depth conversation where we test some of Hugh’s assumptions and detail his thinking of why the country needs to completely rethink the way it defends itself. Hugh White AO is 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. He 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. Chris Farnham is the presenter of the National Security Podcast. He joined the National Security College in June 2015 and is currently Senior Outreach and Policy Officer. His career focus has been on geopolitics with experience working in and out of China for a number of years as well as operating in Australia and Southeast Asia. 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 find us on Facebook. The National Security Podcast and Policy Forum Pod are available on Spotify, iTunes, Stitcher, and wherever you get your podcasts. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
Welcome to La Trobe University’s Clever Conversations. In this episode, we introduce you to The La Trobe Debates – a new series of discussions between those with genuinely different points of view, about some of the most pressing and polarising issues Australians now face. This series is convened by the University’s Ideas and Society program. Shortly, you will hear from Hugh White and Clive Hamilton, who are two of the most important voices on Australia’s relationship with China. In this one-hour debate, they will discuss the potential threats China poses to Australian security, and what Australia’s China Policy should be. Hugh White is Emeritus Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University. He has been an intelligence analyst, a journalist, a senior staffer to Defence Minister Kim Beazley and Prime Minister Bob Hawke, a senior official in the Defence Department, and the first Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. Clive Hamilton is professor of public ethics at Charles Sturt University. He was the founder, and for 14 years, executive director, of The Australia Institute. Held in association with La Trobe Asia, the following debate is moderated by La Trobe University international relations scholar, Dr Bec Strating.
Almost no question is of greater significance for Australia’s future than the emergence of China as an economic and military great power. Does the rise of China pose a threat to the security of Australia? If so, a threat of what kind? Speakers: Professor Hugh White (Strategic Studies at the Australian National University) Professor Clive Hamilton (Public Ethics, Charles Sturt University) Chair: Dr Rebecca Strating (Politics, Media and Philosophy at La Trobe University) Introduced by: Professor John Dewar (Vice-Chancellor, La Trobe University) Presented in association with the Ideas and Society Program at the State Library of Victoria on 6th March, 2019.
Is it possible that China, far from its recent reputation for assertiveness, is in fact a remarkably stable and reticent actor on the world stage? Is there any way that the United States can counteract China’s growing influence on international institutions? Should the United States extend security guarantees to countries like Vietnam? Lyle Goldstein discusses these issues and many more in the fourth episode of “Jaw-Jaw,” the newest addition to the War on the Rocks family of podcasts. Biographies Lyle Goldstein is a research professor in the China Maritime Studies Institute at the United States Naval War College in Newport, Rhode Island. A speaker of both Chinese and Russian, he writes frequently for The National Interest on national security issues. He is the author of Meeting China Halfway: How to Defuse the Emerging US-China Rivalry (2015), among other works. Brad Carson is a professor at the University of Virginia, where he teaches in the Batten School of Leadership and Public Policy. He served in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2001-2005 and was Undersecretary of the Army and acting Undersecretary of Defense for Personnel & Readiness in the Obama Administration. He welcomes comments at brad.carson@warontherocks.com. If you'd like to read a full transcript of this episode, click here. Links John Fairbank, The United States and China, (Harvard University Press, 1983) Lyle Goldstein, Meeting China Halfway: How to Defuse the Emerging US-China Rivalry, (Georgetown University Press, 2015) Richard McKenna, The Sand Pebbles, (Naval Institute Press, 2001) Hugh White, The China Choice: Why We Should Share Power, (Oxford University Press, 2013) The Sinica Podcast Sean's Russia Blog Music and Production by Tre Hester
What were the worst policies of the recent past? What were the policy highlights of 2018? What policies would help improve the world in 2019? We put these questions to more than 20 researchers at the Australian National University spanning an enormous range of policy issues, from foreign aid to fire prevention, drought policy to discrimination, social media to international security. This special end-of-the-year podcast comes in two parts. First, host Martyn Pearce leads a discussion with previous presenters of Policy Forum Pod – Quentin Grafton, Jill Sheppard, Sharon Bessell and Julia Ahrens – on everything that went right and wrong in policy in 2018. Next, host Nicky Lovegrove takes the reins, bringing Sue Regan and Maya Bhandari into the mix, as they take a look at the policies the world needs moving into a new year. Martyn Pearce is Editor of Policy Forum. Sophie Riedel is Policy Forum’s roving reporter for this special end of year episode. Quentin Grafton is Professor of Economics and ANU Public Policy Fellow at Crawford School, and Editor-in-Chief of Policy Forum. Jill Sheppard is a political scientist at the ANU School of Politics and International Relations Sharon Bessell is the Director of the Children’s Policy Centre at Crawford School, and Editor of Policy Forum’s Poverty: In Focus section Julia Ahrens is a presenter on Policy Forum Pod. Nicky Lovegrove is Associate Editor of Policy Forum. Sue Regan is a PhD scholar at Crawford School and Program Director at the Institute of Public Administration Australia. Maya Bhandari is a presenter on Policy Forum Pod. A special thanks to the following ANU academics who appeared on this episode: Hugh White, Sachini Muller, Paul Dibb, Shameem Black, John Gould, Sue Ingram, Clarke Jones, Hedda Ransan-Cooper, Laurie Bamblett, John Blaxland, Margaret Thornton, Timothy Graham, Alister Wedderburn, Ben Phillips, Daniel May, Dominique Dalla-Pozza, Susan Scott, Mark Howden, Paul Burke, Vivien Holmes, and Nicholas Brown. Policy Forum Pod is available on iTunes, Spotify, Stitcher, and 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 find us on Facebook. This episode of Policy Forum Pod was written and produced by Martyn Pearce, Sophie Riedel and Nicky Lovegrove. It was edited by Julia Ahrens. See acast.com/privacy for privacy and opt-out information.
In the controversial Quarterly Essay ‘Without America: Australia in the new Asia’, Hugh White looks at what has happened to the US globally. He considers China’s growing assertiveness in our region, dissects the leadership of Donald Trump and analyses what all of this means for Australia.
Malcolm Turnbull will visit China this week in his first trip there as Prime Minister. The two-day trip, including Shanghai and Beijing, will juggle trade and political issues. ANU Professor of Strategic Studies Hugh White tells Michelle Grattan that Turnbull will be primarily focused on the economic agenda. “Turnbull is one of those who remain bullish about China. He thinks its economic prospects remain bright and he sees it as the principal source of economic opportunities for Australia over the next few years and indeed decades,” White says. White believes Turnbull is downplaying the strategic challenges Australia faces in its relationship with China in an era in which US primacy will no longer remain uncontested. “If we want to remain a military middle power in an Asian century, in which we can no longer assume that the Americans are going to be the dominant player, then we are going to have to spend a higher proportion of our GDP on defence than we have,” he says. He suggests defence spending needs to rise to 3.5% - 4% of GDP. At present it is just under 2%.
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.
How might a new regional order in Asia look, and how could it be built? War was not inevitable in Europe in 1914, and it is not inevitable in Asia today. But war happened in Europe because the Europeans failed to conceive a new international order to reflect radical shifts in the distribution of wealth and power. And war will become more likely in Asia if regional powers fail in the same way to imagine a new regional order which fits the fast-changing realities of power there. How might such a new order look, and how could it be built? Hugh White is a Professor of Strategic Studies at the Australian National University. Previously he held senior official positions in the Australian Government. His recent publications include "Power Shift: Australia’s future between Washington and Beijing," (2010) and "The China Choice: Why America should share power" (2012).
On this week's show we've got a cracking interview with ANU Professor and former prime ministerial advisor Hugh White about the charges brought against alleged Chinese military hackers by the US Department of Justice. That one's coming up after the news. This week's show is brought to you by Tenable Network Security. Jack Daniel of Tenable stops by in this week's sponsor interview to talk about password managers in light of the eBay breach. Is it time we really started encouraging people to use them? Show notes Hackers raid eBay in historic breach, access 145 million records | Reuters http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/05/22/uk-ebay-password-idUKKBN0E10ZL2... Expert: Fake eBay Customer List is Bitcoin Bait - Krebs on Security http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/expert-fake-ebay-customer-list-is-bit... 'Blackshades' Trojan Users Had It Coming - Krebs on Security http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/blackshades-trojan-users-had-it-coming/ U.S. Indictment of Chinese Hackers Could Be Awkward for the NSA | Enterprise | WIRED http://www.wired.com/2014/05/us-indictments-of-chinese-military-hackers-... USDOJ: U.S. Charges Five Chinese Military Hackers for Cyber Espionage Against U.S. Corporations and a Labor Organization for Commercial Advantage http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2014/May/14-ag-528.html NSA reportedly installing spyware on US-made hardware - CNET http://www.cnet.com/au/news/nsa-reportedly-installing-spyware-on-us-made... China ups security checks on tech suppliers as US tensions mount - CNET http://www.cnet.com/au/news/china-ups-security-checks-on-tech-suppliers-... Why did China ban Windows 8? - Security - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au http://www.itnews.com.au/News/386140,why-did-china-ban-windows-8.aspx Cisco CEO asks Obama to control NSA surveillance - CNET http://www.cnet.com/au/news/cisco-ceo-asks-obama-to-control-nsa-surveill... NSA Reform Bill Passes the House-With a Gaping Loophole | Threat Level | WIRED http://www.wired.com/2014/05/usa-freedom-act-2/ Free App Lets the Next Snowden Send Big Files Securely and Anonymously | Threat Level | WIRED http://www.wired.com/2014/05/onionshare/ Pro-Privacy Blackphone Pulls $30M Into Silent Circle | TechCrunch http://techcrunch.com/2014/05/21/silent-circle-funding/ Whistleblowers Beware: Apps Like Whisper and Secret Will Rat You Out | Business | WIRED http://www.wired.com/2014/05/whistleblowers-beware/ Secrets, lies and Snowden's email: why I was forced to shut down Lavabit | Comment is free | theguardian.com http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/may/20/why-did-lavabit-shu... Darkcoin, the Shadowy Cousin of Bitcoin, Is Booming | Threat Level | WIRED http://www.wired.com/2014/05/darkcoin-is-booming/ AFP arrests man over Melbourne IT hack - Security - Technology - News - iTnews.com.au http://www.itnews.com.au/News/386200,afp-arrests-man-over-melbourne-it-h... SNMP DDoS Attacks Spike http://www.darkreading.com/attacks-breaches/snmp-ddos-attacks-spike/d/d-...? SNMP Public Community String Zero Day in Routers Disclosed | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/embedded-devices-leak-authentication-data-via-snmp... XMPP Mandating Encryption on Messaging Service Operators | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/xmpp-mandating-encryption-on-messaging-service-ope... Remove metadata from Office files, PDFs, and images - CNET http://www.cnet.com/au/how-to/remove-metadata-from-office-files-pdfs-and... Chip and PIN EMV Protocol security vulnerabilities found | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/researchers-find-serious-problems-in-chip-and-pin-... Privileged User Access Lacking Trust But Verify | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/enterprises-still-lax-on-privileged-user-access-co... ICS-CERT Confirms Public Utility Compromised Recently | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/ics-cert-confirms-public-utility-compromised-recen... Samsung Eyeing Iris Recognition for New Phones | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/samsung-eyeing-iris-recognition-for-new-phones/106222 Why You Should Ditch Adobe Shockwave - Krebs on Security http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/why-you-should-ditch-adobe-shockwave/ Malvertising Redirecting to Angler EK, Silverlight Exploits | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/malvertising-redirecting-to-microsoft-silverlight-... Android Outlook App Could Expose Emails, Attachments | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/android-outlook-app-could-expose-emails-attachment... Microsoft Working on Patch for IE 8 Zero Day | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/microsoft-working-on-patch-for-ie-8-zero-day/106247 Chrome 35 Fixes 23 Security Flaws | Threatpost | The first stop for security news http://threatpost.com/chrome-35-fixes-23-security-flaws/106188 Professor Hugh White - Researchers - ANU https://researchers.anu.edu.au/researchers/white-hj 02 - Mammal - Think - YouTube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mCQXqHr9CwE&feature=kp
Featuring Professor Hugh White & The Hon. Kelvin Thomson MP, Parliamentary Secretary for Trade, and moderated by James Griffiths, ACT Fabians Secretary.The topic for discussion is the Australia in the Asian Century concept. In the Asian Century, our future lies abroad... How should Australia balance the opportunity and the challenges? Will we use trade, or be driven by our defence needs? Can we balance both?
The first duty of a government is to defend the nation. Not only has the Gillard government lost control of our borders - unless of course this is a deliberate boats for votes policy. It is, as the Australian Strategic and Defence Studies Centre Director Hugh White says, in the process of downgrading Australia from being a middle power to a small power with all the loss of influence that entails. Worse, is not admitting to the Australian people how it is betraying those who defended and built this country. Because the government carelessly wasted the vast assets left to it by the Howard government, and is now bound to borrow enormous sums overseas, it has taken the axe to the defence budget. Hugh White sees no evidence that the Gillard government has a defence strategy at all or even realises the damage it is doing. This is made worse by the ideological obsessions and political deals of this government. Just as the previous Labor governments gave us the virtually useless and massively expensive Collins class submarines, the Gillard government is tied down by the political deal that you submarines have to be assembled here. Then there is the silly ideological decision that we must not have nuclear powered submarines which are ideal for Australia.
© 2020-2025 Ivy Podcast Discovery LLC
