Australia Defense Policy - Case Study Example

Institution : xxxxxxxxxxx Title : xxxxxxxxxxx Tutor : xxxxxxxxxxx Course : xxxxxxxxxxx @2010 Introduction According to Dibb (2003), Australia’s defence policy has for more than two decades remained basically unchanged. Succeeding governments of Australia have put more emphasis on the defence of Australia and its immediate region. Australia’s current position on security and defence therefore continues to be based on the principle of self-sufficiency in direct defence of Australia as well as in relation to its unique strategic interests, although with the capacity to do more when necessary and consistent with the strategic interests that it might be sharing with others, and within the limits of its resources. The Australian position involves upholding of alliances as well as international defence relationships that boosts its own security and as well, allowing it to work with others when it needs to pool its resources. According to Dibb (2003), it is currently argued that there ought to be a far-reaching change and that weight should be put on distant operations with Australian allies. The question that remains therefore unanswered is; are the very different points of view supporting the fundamentals of Australia’s defence strategy? Critic of the Australian Defence Policy The Australian Defence Policy in my opinion can be argued to be potentially beneficial in enhancing the security of Australia in several ways. One of the major factors is based on the fact that the government policy of self-reliance offers priority to the capability of Australia to defend itself using its own resources.According to Beazley (2009), it is important for Australia to have a military capability that can put off an enemy from successfully attacking its own territory both in our air, sea and land approaches. As a result, a self-reliance defense policy ensures the country gains a foothold within its own territory in addition to extracting a political concession from within, through the use of its military force. Another strength of the Australian Defence Policy is based on the fact that Australia’s defense interests are uniquely attained using its own military force .As highlighted by the chapter VI of the Defense White Paper (2009),the international community has various interests, not least the security matters of its member states.For instance,if Australia developed a defense policy that was solely dependant on coalitions or international bodies such as the UN,it would be difficult for Australia to fully attain its strategic defense interest. As highlighted by chapter V of the Defense Policy, our most basic strategic interest in terms of defense is to protect Australia against armed attacks by non-state actors and other states. This interest can be fully attained only if our defense policy is developed in line with our strategic interests.Therefore, the self-reliance approach undertaken by the government is useful. Apart from being self-reliant, the Australian defense policy has adopted the approach of making coalitions with like-minded nations in order to maintain global security. This can be basically explained by the increasing global security issues such as threats from terrorism as well as the associated fear of mass destruction falling into the hands of terrorists which are posing serious security challenges. Coalitions are becoming more and more important as a ways of tackling a number of global security challenges such as terrorist networks and insurgencies. Such coalitions act as vehicles through which nations like Australia can bring together their resources according to their comparative military strengths as well as their capacity to contribute. This enables them to deal with common strategic interests as they have a well-defined interest in contributing to the coalitions. By engaging in coalitions, Australian security is enhanced essentially because just like any other nation, Australia is faced with contemporary insecurity threats like terrorism which requires collaborations with other states in order to deal with common security threats (Defense White Paper, 2009). An additional strength of the Australian Defence Policy is based on the fact that it is broad-based. According to Ayson (2003), there are number of security challenges Australia is facing within the arc of instability that the Australia Defence Policy is addressing. These potential challenges therefore confirm several questions that policy has been able to address. By the Policy addressing broad-based issue such as insecurity in neighbouring countries, Australia reduces the challenges of insecurity essentially because security in neighbouring regions is security to Australia. Fergusson (2002) brings to light the fact that Australia moved from a strict self-reliance approach towards the view of regional interdependence as well as the idea of developing a more secure regional community. The weaknesses of the Australian Defense Policy include the aspect of inflexibility. In particular, it is often disputed that Australia’s defense interests calls for a defense force that has the capability of rapidly deploying outside Australia. It is also disputed that the Australian Defense Policy was not able to effectively respond to various threats save for direct attacks on the Australian soil. In addition, it is also disputed that the Australian Defense Policy is not suitable when it comes to dealing with less stable geo-political conditions from the time when the Cold War ended, and which has witnessed the Australian military deployed more often than expected under the Australian Defense Policy. Another major weakness of the Australian Defense Policy arises due to the self-reliant approach. Critics argue that that the self-reliance approach of Australia Defense Approach is more combative and militaristic in its thinking, with more emphasis on military strike aircrafts as well as expensive exercises that are only perceived as threats against regional states. Fergusson (2002) argues therefore that, from this viewpoint, the self-reliant approach of defense adopted by the Australian government damaged any hopes of coming up with a common security approach within the region. Viewed as pre-impective, the Australian Defence Policy may not therefore be based on the perception of a just defense system. Controversies and ethical dilemmas raised by the Defence Policy One of the controversial issues raised by the defense policy in chapter VI of the Defense White Paper (2009) is that in terms of strategic posture, the Australian government takes the view that neutrality was the best strategy it securing its people and territory. This posture requires that the disengagement from alliances like those we had with the U.S and probably to raise the level of defense expenditure significantly. The controversial aspect arising from this particular proposal is that although Australia claims to have disengaged its alliance with the U.S, its active role in the war against Afghanistan as been argued to b e quite controversial. Australia’s commitment to the Afghanistan war has been under political limelight, a decade after former Australian Prime Minister John Howard led the nation into the fight against al-Qaeda and the Taliban. However, according to Clegg (2010), Australia’s main strategic aim in Afghanistan was to make stronger its alliance with America. However, strong doubts currently exist as to whether Australia has presently achieved this is to seek after its own national interests.Hovever, Australia’s involvement in the Afghan war raises ethical dilemmas whether the involvement of Australia was for Australian national interest or merely projecting its own influence. In addition, the claim by the defense policy of disengagement with the U.S is also questionable. The self-reliance approach adopted by Australia can also raise certain controversies.As highlighted by the liberal idealism theory, war is a global security issue that requires collective, rather than national efforts to tackle it.Therefore,with the increasing global insecurity issues such as terrorism, it is vital that Australia adopts a much more flexible security defense approach. The notion of disengaging the alliance with the U.S appears to be divisive. Recommendations of Aspects to be included in the Defense Policy The Medical Association for Prevention of War, 2010, Vision 2030, provides fruitful recommendations that can be integrated in the Australian Defence Policy. One of the recommendations is that Australia should direct its funding to the Foreign Affairs and Trade department to facilitate a greater capacity of arms control and disarmament diplomacy, as well as greater involvement in international diplomacy efforts in situations of crisis and high risk nations. Moreover, security, especially within conflict areas such Bougainville and New Papua ought to be given considerations not just in terms of stability but also from the perspective of human rights, justice, and self-determination, so that the fundamental causes of the conflicts addressed. Whereas it is critically fundamental to rebalance the employment of diplomacy, development and defense, the role of the defense forces ought not to be understated. In this, the Australian Defense Force can make sure it facilitates a human security approach by developing the capacity as well as the expertise necessary to contribute to international security operations, protect civilians during armed conflict and without causing any harm to them. Another recommendation is that the Australian government should develop a clearly articulated effort towards global security as an objective in iself.This means that if Australian have to live up to their moral obligations, Australia has to make sure that the protection of civilians is the principal priority in response to global conflicts. The government must therefore act quickly in order to deal with trends making people susceptible to crisis, including poverty, arms proliferation etc.The Australian parliament should also explore further initiatives that will make sure that Australia does not take part in any war again without the approval of the parliament. Conclusion From the above analysis it can be argued out that the analysis of both sides of the arguments indicates that the benefits decisively overshadow the costs. On the other hand, Australia seems to wisely use its alliance relationships to help it ease the burden it identifies it cannot meet on its own. This alliance works essentially because; the U.S and Australia share common national interests as well as objectives. Despite the fact that they do not always match, the two have enough respect for each other and there is also flexibility within the alliances formed such that each of them can still pursue their respective security objectives.   References Clegg, W, 2010, Australia in Afghanistan: How sound is our Strategy? Dibb, P, 2003, Does Australia Need a New Defence Policy? Retrieved on April 12 from http://rspas.anu.edu.au/papers/sdsc/viewpoint/paper_030811.pdf Defense White Paper 2009. Fergusson, James, 2002, Australian Defence Policies: Alliance or Independence? The Department of International Relations, SHSS, Bond University, Queensland, Australia, Retrieved on April 12 from http://www.international-relations.com/wbip/wbnlec5.htm Medical Association for Prevention of War, 2010, Vision 2030, An Alternative Approach to Australian Security, Carlton: MAPW. Robert Ayson, 2003, Australia’s Defense and Security Challenges: A Tale of Three “Posts” NZ International Review. Read More