Photo courtesy of defence.gov.au

The view from abroad can give us insights to how we are perceived.

John Harris

Last week Julia Gillard and Stephen Smith presented the Australian Government’s Defence White Paper 2013. The white paper, a broad and long-term policy document, outlines the analysis of the government’s current position and future direction. For defence, this takes the form of our overall national security policy for the next decade.

There has been much discussion inside Australia about the importance of this document, both from the media and experts. While it is always valuable to look at the debate amongst Australian experts, it helps to understand how those overseas are viewing Australia’s newest statement and analysis of regional and domestic security. The way others look at Australia will help develop our foreign relationships. Below are a selection of views from around the world.

China: Australia’s defence paper accepts rise of China’s military

Australian attitudes hold back China ties

USA: Australia, America’s test case in the Asia Pacific

Indonesia: Australian defence plan targets Indonesian ties

Japan: Australia, Indonesia moving as close as perceptions allow

Thailand: Australia softens China stance in new military outlook

New Zealand: Canberra seeking balance between potentially conflicting relations with China and the United States

Ghana: Does the Australian 2013 Defence white paper signal a strategic withdrawal

When: May 9th, 6:00pm
Where: University of Melbourne, Elisabeth Murdoch – Theatre A

To launch the UN Youth Representative’s national tour, we invite you to come and give your views on the global issues that concern you.

What should Australia be doing with our new UN Security Council seat? How should we engage with Asia? What should Australia aim to achieve on the world stage?

The evening will include an address from the UN Youth Representative for 2013 followed by an open Q&A panel with previous youth representatives moderated by the ABC’s Michael Rowland.

You must RSVP to secure your place at this event – tickets are limited!

By Steven Burak

The Brazilian led push for an updated and improved Responsibility to Protect has created yet another acronym in the International Relations lexicon; RWP, or the Responsibility While Protecting. Does this new acronym demand the attention of the Australian government and United Nations Security Council (UNSC) representative? Most definitely it does. The debate which begun post-Libyan intervention and is continuing during the deterioration of Syria, has brought to light the weakness in the structures and procedures of the Responsibility to Protect and the need for development.

In the wake of the UNSC sanctioned intervention of Libya, a divide grew in the UNSC between the BRICS states (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and the United States, Great Britain and France. The BRICS challenged the group opposite about their mindset in the Libyan intervention. They leveled that the United States, Great Britain and France had overstepped the guidelines of implementing R2P in Libya due to their conviction for regime change. For the BRICS, the ability for the regime change objective to exist as a driving force for the intervention highlighted the imperfections in the process of enacting the military component. Led by the Brazilians, the Responsibility to Protect‘s military component was brought under examination, and, in turn, the RWP was formulated.

The RWP attempts to fill in the gaps of R2P. Among its proposed measures it calls for principles of proportionality, reasonable prospects and right intention. These principles were originally part of the corpus of R2P when it was created by the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty in 2001, but they were not adopted by the UN Summit in 2005 or the UNSC in 2006. However the fault in this principle lies not in these proposals but in the rigid process of decision making in the RWP paradigm. Ban Ki Moon, Secretary-General of the United Nations, said that the sequential process espoused by the Brazilian model could work to inhibit the decision making process rather than providing it flexibility.

This climate of debate and discussion on R2P is perfect for Australia to show off the investment it has made into the initiative. Alongside its thinkers in the diplomatic corps, the Asia-Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect at the University of Queensland and the Australian Civil-Military Centre are valuable resources of mind power for the issue. With the production of ideas flowing from these different sources Australia can act on the UNSC as a supplier of efficient and effective ideas.

When the Brazilian government produced the RWP, the former Secretary-General’s Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect, Edward C. Luck, said that “the maturing principle of the Responsibility to Protect can only be strengthened through open and interactive discussion with Member States, independent experts, and civil society”. The UNSC position is Australia’s chance to directly engage with its domestic investments to consolidate the short comings of R2P.

Suggested further reading about ‘Responsibility to Protect’

Bellamy, J. Alex, Realizing the Responsibility to Protect; International Studies Perspectives, 2009 pp.111-128

Evans, Gareth, The Solution: From “The Right to Intervene” to “The Responsibility to Protect”

Newman, Michael, Revisiting the ‘Responsibility to Protect’; The Political Quarterly, Vol.80, No.1, January-March 2009 pp.92-100

Sharma, K.Serena, Toward a Global Responsibility to Protect: Setbacks on the Path to Implementation; Global Governance 16, 2010 pp.121-138

* Steven is currently studying a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Islamic Studies at the University of Melbourne.

This event will bring together two of Australia’s next generation of foreign policymakers – the Liberal Party’s Kelly O’Dwyer and Richard Marles of the ALP – both lower house members of Federal Parliament.

The two will participate in a debate moderated by the ABC’s Bev O’Connor and then respond to questions from a small audience of invited guests.

The resulting event will be packaged into a television program broadcast across the Asia Pacific region on Australia Network and domestically on ABC News 24.

We invite you to register interest in attending by completing an online form here by Wednesday 6 November: http://www.asialink.unimelb.edu.au/calendar/events/Future_Foreign_Policy

DATE: Tuesday 25 September 2012

TIME: 6:30pm – 8:00pm

VENUE: Carillo Gantner Theatre, Sidney Myer Asia Centre, University of Melbourne

For more information and registration-  http://asialink.unimelb.edu.au/calendar/events/featured/US_Relations_in_the_Asian_Century

DATE: Tuesday 18 September 2012

TIME: 6:30pm- 8:00pm

VENUE: The Spot Basement Theatre, 198 Berkley Street, University of Melbourne

For more information and registration  http://www.asialink.unimelb.edu.au/martin_jacques

ABC Public Forum: Australia in The Asian Century

Date: Thursday 23 August 2012

Time: 7:00pm – 8:30pm

Venue: Goosens Hall, ABC Studios, 700 Harris Street, Ultimo

Discussion moderated by Jim Middleton including:

• Ambassador Yoshiji Nogami, President, Japan Institute for International Affairs
• Dr Ruan Zongze , Vice-President, China Institute of International Studies
• Associate Professor Simon Tay, Chairman, Singapore Institute of International Affairs
• John McCarthy FAIIA, National President, Australian Institute of International Affairs
• Professor Peter Drysdale AM FAIIA, Member, Advisory Panel, White Paper Taskforce

This is a free event and is open to the public. Registration is required: http://www.aiia.asn.au/events/all-events/event/541-abc-public-forum-australia-in-the-asian-century.

The AIIA will then hold an all-day National President’s Forum at NSW Parliament House on Friday 24 August 2012 expanding on the issues discussed at the Public Forum.

Further information or registration as an observer is available at: http://www.aiia.asn.au/nsw-events/event/543-national-presidents-forum-australia-in-the-asian-century-.

If you have any queries, please contact the AIIA on (02) 6282 2133.

By John Varghese

The human rights agenda has once again clawed its way into public discourse after a decade of marginalisation and oblivion in the post 9/11 era. The Libyan crisis and the broader Arab Spring have been met with fierce resistance by the authoritarian governments of the region.

In particular, the Libyan crisis was so stark that the international community was drawn into a civil conflict between rebels in the East and Muammar Gaddafi’s troops in Tripoli. ‘The responsibility to protect’ was invoked in principle, on the grounds that government forces were ready to indiscriminately kill civilians in Benghazi. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) voted in favour of a ‘no-fly zone’ so as to prevent a large scale slaughter, such as occurred in Rwanda.

The birth of the human rights movement began with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. Yet the politics of the Cold war blocked the UNSC from taking bold, decisive action when faced with mass atrocity and genocide. The end of the Cold War allowed the Security Council to engage in numerous peacekeeping missions abroad, and human rights activists were hoping for a new dawn in the human rights agenda. However, its successes were short-lived with the failed interventions in Somalia, the horrors of civil conflict in Rwanda and the murdering of innocent men, women and children taken from UN ‘safe zones’ in Bosnia. The Rwandan genocide resulted in over 800,000 deaths with millions displaced. There was a broad consensus that the failures in halting genocide and mass atrocities in both Rwanda and Bosnia had a particularly sobering effect on the international community.

With this hindsight, the Canadian government launched the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) co-chaired by Gareth Evans and Mohamed Sahnoun. The aim of the Commission was to build political will for international action in the event that a future crisis emerged. The concept of “the responsibility to protect’, which had been coined by Francis Deng, the Representative of the UN Secretary-General on Internally Displaced Persons, was recommended by the Commission and would later be adopted by the United Nations. It would allow for international action if a state failed to protect its citizens from mass atrocity including genocide, ethnic cleansing and crimes against humanity. Whilst there have been numerous criticisms of the doctrine in recent times, it has been the basis of successful intervention in Kenya where political violence following the 2008 election had threatened to escalate into a full-scale civil war. The “responsibility to protect” has established a basic framework in dealing with future humanitarian crises and is responsible for saving thousands of lives in the wake of the Libyan civil war.  As protesters in Syria, Bahrain and Yemen continue to be abused and systematically targeted by their authoritarian regimes, it is time for the international community to act decisively to protect these innocent civilians.

Suggested further reading about ‘Responsibility to Protect’

Bellamy, J. Alex, Realizing the Responsibility to Protect; International Studies Perspectives, 2009 pp.111-128

Evans, Gareth, The Solution: From “The Right to Intervene” to “The Responsibility to Protect”

Newman, Michael, Revisiting the ‘Responsibility to Protect’; The Political Quarterly, Vol.80, No.1, January-March 2009 pp.92-100

Sharma, K.Serena, Toward a Global Responsibility to Protect: Setbacks on the Path to Implementation; Global Governance 16, 2010 pp.121-138

* John is currently studying for a Masters in International Relations at the University of Melbourne and is actively involved in the promotion of human rights through Amnesty International.

If you would like to comment on this column, please email monthlyaccess.editor@aiia.asn.au

By Zeb Leonard

From the very beginnings of the age of nuclear weapons there have been vocal commentators advocating they never be used and that disarmament should begin. Although these voices have been powerful, the bomb cannot be ‘uninvented.’

Attempts to control atomic weapons technology, beginning with the U.S. Atomic Energy Act of 1946, have been far from completely successful and it is known that nuclear weapons exist in the arsenals of the United States, Russia, United Kingdom, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea. It is very strongly suspected that Israel is in possession of nuclear weapons and South Africa is known to have had nuclear weapons but has dismantled them.

Efforts to control the proliferation of nuclear weapons, such as the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), which first entered into force in March 1970, have largely been the responsibility of states. However, the voices of civil society groups, such as NGOs, have also been influential on the debate surrounding non-proliferation and disarmament. It would seem that advocating complete disarmament (as in Australia’s official perspective as outlined by the ‘Canberra Commission’) is a noble but unfortunately unlikely goal.  Nevertheless, prominent groups such as the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons and the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament have as their ultimate goal that all nuclear weapons be dismantled and no more are fabricated.

Yet it should be noted that the general design and function of first-generation nuclear weapons is a matter on the public record. Furthermore, the horrendous destructive potential of even a small yield nuclear weapon will, unfortunately, ensure they remain a desirable asset for those seeking power.  As Hans Morgenthau, to whom the concept of the ‘realist’ perspective to international relations is attributed, stated ‘International politics, like all politics, is a struggle for power.’ Nuclear weapons have become in themselves a symbol of power in modernity.

The interests of activists in the global community who desire disarmament would perhaps best be served by promoting that declared nuclear powers undergo an agreed-upon reduction in nuclear forces in stages, with efforts towards disarmament being matched by potential rivals.  A salient recent example of a step in this direction (at least in terms of reduction in what nuclear forces are actually deployed) is the new START treaty between the United States and Russia, which entered into force in February 2011.

The technology of a first-generation bomb can be replicated by developing nations and, perhaps more worryingly, could be replicated by a well-funded non-state group. We should be thankful that the fissile material required to bring about a nuclear explosion is difficult to obtain. It is unlikely that a non-state group could construct the necessary reactors, centrifuges or particle accelerators to isolate their own fissile material. However it should be noted it was the lifetime fear of former U.S. nuclear weapons designer Theodore B Taylor the required material could be obtained via theft from civil industry. Regardless of one’s individual stance on nuclear power, the nuclear industry is vital to contemporary society for such things as the production of medical isotopes. As the nuclear industry grows, activist voices in the global community may well be wise to direct their attention to promoting officials to ensure that proper safeguards for fissile material are in place.

Ultimately, complete disarmament may never be realised, however members of the broader global community can do much to promote that nuclear arsenals be scaled down and that potential ‘entry level’ proliferators are carefully monitored.

Zeb Leonard received his PhD from the University of Ballarat in May 2011.  His thesis explored the public debates surrounding British nuclear weapons testing in Australia.

As included in Edition 22, Nov of Monthly Access, a publication available at http://www.aiia.asn.au/access-monthly-access