The Future of the Australian-U.S. Security Relationship

Australia is an increasingly important ally for the United States. It is willing to be part of challenging global missions, and its strong economy and growing self-confi dence suggest a more prominent role in both global and regional affairs. Moreover, its government has worked hard to strengthen the link between Canberra and Washington. Political and strategic affi nities between the two countries have been refl ected in--and complemented by--practiced military interoperability, as the two allies have sustained a pattern of security cooperation in relation to East Timor, Afghanistan and Iraq in the last 4 years. This growing collaboration between the two countries suggests that a reinvention of the traditional bilateral security relationship is taking place. At the core of this process lies an agreement about the need for engaging in more proactive strategic behavior in the changing global security environment, and a mutual acceptance of looming military and technological interdependence. But this new alliance relationship is already testing the boundaries of bipartisan support for security policy within Australia. Issues of strategic doctrine, defense planning, and procurement are becoming topics of fi erce policy debate. Such discussion is likely to be sharpened in the years ahead as Australia’s security relationship with the United States settles into a new framework.

Australia's Security and the threat of Islamic Extremism in Southeast Asia

Australian foreign and security policy confronts a series of difficult challenges in coping with the emergence of an Islamic extremist threat in Southeast Asia. Australian policy makers are being drawn into unfamiliar linkages with moderate Islam, and into closer cooperation with Indonesia, the most populous Islamic nation in the world, in an attempt to offset Islamic extremists. Further, they must achieve those objectives at a time when important interests are at stake beyond Southeast Asia, when bipartisan agreement about the direction of foreign policy is waning, and when divisions over the appropriate trajectory of Australian security policy are intense. A delicacy almost unprecedented in Australian foreign policy will be required.

Alternatives to peace keeping in Korea: the role of non-state actors and face-to-face encounters

Korea is one of the world's most volatile areas, not least because traditional UN mediation and peacekeeping missions are impossible. Having intervened in the Korean War on behalf of the southern side, the UN is a party to the conflict, rather than a neutral arbiter. The situation is particularly problematic because political interactions are characterized by a high degree of state-control over security policy. In both parts of the peninsula the state has, at least until recently, exercised the exclusive right to deal with the opponent on the other side of the hermetically divided peninsula. Given these domestic and international constrains, alternative approaches to conflict resolution are urgently needed. The recently proliferating literature on human security offers possible solutions, for it urges policy makers to view security beyond the conventional military-based defence of the state and its territory. Using such a conceptual framework, the essay assesses the potential significance non-state interactions between North and South, particularly those that promote communication, information exchange and face-to-face encounters. Even though these interactions remain limited, they are of crucial importance, for they provide an opportunity to reduce the stereotypical threat images that continue to fuel conflict on the peninsula.

The Utility of the Human Security Agenda for Policy-makers

The idea of “human security” is gaining attention among policy-makers and security analysts. Little scholarly attention has been given to the questions of why states accept (or reject) a human security agenda or how such an agenda is incorporated into policy practices. The article suggests that a human security approach is most likely to be applied when both humanitarian and national interests combine. Yet when states or organisations adopt a human security approach, they often misjudge the complex and long-term commitment required of such an approach. There is also the potential for such an agenda to be manipulated to justify questionable courses of action. These issues frame an analysis of six recent case studies.

Computer technology - A political player in social policy processes

The absence of considerations of technology in policy studies reinforces the popular notion that technology is a neutral tool, Through an analysis of the role played by computers in the policy processes of Australia's Department of Social Security, this paper argues that computers are political players in policy processes, Findings indicate that computers make aspects of the social domain knowable and therefore governable, The use of computers makes previously infeasible policies possible, Computers also operate as bureaucrats and as agents of client surveillance. Increased policy change, reduced discretion and increasingly targeted and complex policies can be attributed to the use of computer technology, If policy processes are to be adequately understood and analysed, then the role of technology in those processes must be considered.

Identity and security in Korea

The summit meeting between the two Korean heads of state, which took place in Pyongyang in June 2000, constitutes a major turning point in the peninsula's history. As the effects of the meeting are gradually unfolding, a period of detente no longer seems impossible. But major difficulties remain unsolved and Korea will continue to be one of the world's most volatile areas. The task of this essay is to identify and analyse some of the entrenched political patterns that will challenge policy-makers in the years ahead. To do so it is necessary to portray the conflict in Korea not only in conventional ideological and geopolitical terms, but also, and primarily, as a question of identity. From such a vantage-point two components are essential in the search for a more peaceful peninsula. Substantial progress has recently been made in the first realm, the need to approach security problems, no matter how volatile they seem. in a cooperative and dialogical, rather than merely a coercive manner. The second less accepted but perhaps more important factor, revolves around the necessity to recognize that dialogue has its limits, that the party on the other side of the DMZ cannot always be accommodated or subsumed into compromise. Needed is an ethics of difference: a willingness to accept that the other's sense of identity and politics may be inherently incompatible with one's own.

Issues in Australian Foreign Policy January to June 2001

The first half of 2001 saw traditional issues dominating the foreign policy agenda, with both Australia's relationship with the United States and the policy of Asian engagement still holding centre stage. But those old issues generated fresh anxieties. In the United States, the incoming Bush administration displayed a genuine radicalism in its approach to foreign policy, and that raised concerns in many Western capitals — including Canberra — about a new mood of unilateralism in Washington. At the same time, the emergence of the thesis that Australia was becoming a "branch office economy", where key decisions were taken in the capital markets of New York and London, made the government noticeably more cautious and selective in its endorsement of globalisation. Further, the issue of Asian engagement grew steadily more complex: Australian policy-makers searched unsuccessfully for a new focus for the policy of Asian engagement, as Japan's economy wallowed and Indonesia's democratic government tottered.

'The utility of human security': Which humans? What security? A reply to Thomas & Tow

Thomas & Tow's evaluation of the utility of human security is an important contribution to an ongoing debate about what security is and for whom security should be provided. In particular, the authors' engagement with the human security agenda is important given the centrality of this approach to recent attempts to rethink security. This article argues, however, that Thomas & Tow's approach to the human security agenda is problematic for two central reasons. First, their attempt to narrow security to make this approach amenable to state policymakers risks reifying the sources of insecurity for individuals everywhere. Second, the conception of human security they put forward appears largely inconsistent with the normative concerns inherent in the human security agenda.