Comments on Hugh White “Australia’s strategic future after the white paper”, 19/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/19/australias-strategic-future-after-the-white-paper/
There seem two important issues raised in Hugh White’s article for Australia to consider. One is how Australia should position itself strategically for the future and the other is how Australian government and the defence department can improve the effectiveness and efficiency in defence expenditures.
Strategically, and ideally, the best outcome for every country including Australia would be a well designed and implemented collective world and international security system. The current power politics and superpower balance and deterrence have their historical roles. But looking at the long term future, the original idealism of the UN and UN Security Council system should be revived. This is especially important given the end of the cold war, the lessons learnt from the Iraq war and the changing international economic dynamics and the consequential international power structure.
In that light, the UNSC system should be strengthened and reformed to make it an important and effective world collective security institution. As the UNSC system strengthens and become more effective in international security, cold war military systems, organisations and structures should be gradually dismantled. The Australia – US alliance should be viewed in that strategic context.
The efficiency of Australian public expenditures, as those in many countries, is a big public policy issue. The efficiency of Australian defence expenditures is no exception, and perhaps more of an issue than other civilian expenditures, because of its less accountability due to the military nature. Ideally, there should be some parliamentary committee to oversee public spending, including military spending to make them more value for the money.
Government should be much more accountable for its decisions, especially when taxpayers’ money is concerned. Even for military spending where fewer people understand what should be and how they should be done, there should be an appropriate balance between secrecy and accountability.
Showing posts with label military alliance. Show all posts
Showing posts with label military alliance. Show all posts
2009-06-16
What can Japan expect from rebalancing?
Comments on Tobias Harris “Is Japan balancing?” 16/06/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/06/16/is-japan-balancing/
This is another point that why there is a need to have an Asian community that collectively looks after themselves and the region as a whole. No matter what Japan does, it is likely only to represent a futile and wasteful attempt to balance or to fill the waning influences of the US in North East Asia. That will cause wasteful military race in the region and beyond.
It has been more than 60 years after the end of the Second World War and nearly 20 years after the collapse of the former USSR, the other only superpower aside the US during the cold war era. What is Japan rebalancing for? Will it effective to its so called objectives?
We need to move on from the cold war geopolitical thinking and strategies. We need a completely new approach. An Asia community or union style with collective and non-discriminative security arrangement for all members will save unnecessarily too much military spending for each of its members.
East Asia or Asia more broadly, should build on the recent momentum of its ascendance in world economic affairs to look for a more-long lasting and more-enduring regional development, stability and security. Through managing well its own regional affairs, Asia can contribute to a better world.
This is another point that why there is a need to have an Asian community that collectively looks after themselves and the region as a whole. No matter what Japan does, it is likely only to represent a futile and wasteful attempt to balance or to fill the waning influences of the US in North East Asia. That will cause wasteful military race in the region and beyond.
It has been more than 60 years after the end of the Second World War and nearly 20 years after the collapse of the former USSR, the other only superpower aside the US during the cold war era. What is Japan rebalancing for? Will it effective to its so called objectives?
We need to move on from the cold war geopolitical thinking and strategies. We need a completely new approach. An Asia community or union style with collective and non-discriminative security arrangement for all members will save unnecessarily too much military spending for each of its members.
East Asia or Asia more broadly, should build on the recent momentum of its ascendance in world economic affairs to look for a more-long lasting and more-enduring regional development, stability and security. Through managing well its own regional affairs, Asia can contribute to a better world.
2009-06-03
Rudd's APC proposal and US and Australia alliance: are they compatible?
Further comments on Peter Drysdale “Rudd in Singapore on the Asia Pacific Community idea”, 31/05/2009, http://www.eastasiaforum.org/2009/05/31/rudd-in-singapore-on-the-asia-pacific-community-idea/
Irrespective whether Ron Huisken's interpretation of the Rudd APC proposal is correct, that proposal seems fatally flawed. It is a naive and premature idea.
Just think about this: is China willing to deal with the US alone or is that willing to deal with the US and its two military allies and deputies in the East Asia together? Alternatively, is Rudd prepared to give up the US - Australia alliance? Is Japan willing to do so? Why would China want to create more trouble for itself by including Japan and Australia in its dealing with the US if it can do it on a bilateral basis?
I have no doubt that Rudd is good intentioned in his APC proposal. But if Ron Huisken is correct that Rudd's key objective is to see the United States cemented into a body within which there are some members that are militarily aligned with the US while the other rising power is not, it is unlikely to get off the ground.
That should not be a too subtle point for people to see. In that context, there is also the Australian white paper on defence. It does not appear to sit well with Rudd's APC concept. At the least they have been poorly timed together.
Irrespective whether Ron Huisken's interpretation of the Rudd APC proposal is correct, that proposal seems fatally flawed. It is a naive and premature idea.
Just think about this: is China willing to deal with the US alone or is that willing to deal with the US and its two military allies and deputies in the East Asia together? Alternatively, is Rudd prepared to give up the US - Australia alliance? Is Japan willing to do so? Why would China want to create more trouble for itself by including Japan and Australia in its dealing with the US if it can do it on a bilateral basis?
I have no doubt that Rudd is good intentioned in his APC proposal. But if Ron Huisken is correct that Rudd's key objective is to see the United States cemented into a body within which there are some members that are militarily aligned with the US while the other rising power is not, it is unlikely to get off the ground.
That should not be a too subtle point for people to see. In that context, there is also the Australian white paper on defence. It does not appear to sit well with Rudd's APC concept. At the least they have been poorly timed together.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
