Search

Begin New Search Political Geography Australia Publication Year within 5 Years

21. Ice panda: navigating China’s hybrid Antarctic agenda

Author:
Elizabeth Buchanan
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
Antarctica is often overlooked in strategic discussions, but its role in geopolitical competition deserves attention. This report assesses the continents importance to Australian security, China’s hybrid Antarctic activity, and the need for Australia to develop a balancing strategy capable of bolstering the Antarctic Treaty and ‘pushing back’ against growing Chinese power in Antarctica. Antarctica offers significant strategic advantages for the People's Republic of China (PRC). Although Beijing's actions in Antarctica may not overtly violate the Antarctic Treaty (AT), they effectively undermine its principles and, by extension, Australia's strategic interests. Currently, the PRC is adeptly navigating the AT System to challenge the status quo without explicitly breaching the treaty. China's domestic policies, which merge civil and military sectors, appear to contravene the spirit of the AT's military prohibitions, even if they have not yet resulted in direct military activity on the continent. This evolving dynamic underscores the pressing need for Australia to safeguard the existing Antarctic status quo. With robust Australian foreign and security prioritization, the AT can counter Beijing's growing ambitions, which may directly impact Australian interests. We must protect and uphold the principles of the AT. With diverse domestic and international priorities, Australia must not neglect Antarctica, as Beijing continues to exploit the strategic gap left by our limited focus. Australia, with its rich history and commitment to Antarctica, must assert its role as an Antarctic claimant and clarify that China's presence is contingent on Australian and other claimants' cooperation. It's time for Australia to lead in Antarctica and protect our strategic interests.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Geopolitics, and Strategic Competition
Political Geography:
China, Australia, Asia-Pacific, and Antarctica

22. Ensuring protection in humanitarian emergencies: A framework for Australia

Author:
Jane McAdam and Regina Jefferies
Publication Date:
09-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Andrew & Renata Kaldor Centre for International Refugee Law at UNSW Sydney
Abstract:
The purpose of this Policy Brief is to recommend a framework for humanitarian emergencies that would enable the Australian government to provide a streamlined, equitable, predictable and effective response to assist people facing a real risk of persecution, extreme danger or other serious harm to find safety and protection in Australia. It is informed by Australia’s practices over time, as well as comparative practices internationally. The framework is designed with the Australian context in mind, but it could also be used as a model for other countries.2 It encompasses both legal protection (visas and access to support) and physical protection (evacuation and reception). In a crisis, moving away from danger is a natural and rational human response. Whereas some people will have the financial resources, immigration documentation and networks to facilitate their rapid departure, others may be unable to move or find themselves ‘trapped’ by their circumstances. They may have acute protection needs that cannot be addressed unless they can reach a place of safety. In some cases, evacuations will be a necessary first step; in others, people will be able to move on their own. In all cases, non-citizens will require visas and identity documents to move lawfully. As such, this Policy Brief has a particular focus on visa pathways, since they are the gateway to everything else. Four recent conflicts in Afghanistan (2021–), Ukraine (2022–), Sudan (2023–) and Gaza (2023–) have seen large numbers of people unable to leave dangerous situations. In each case, Australia’s humanitarian response has been different. For some groups, acquiring a visa to escape and travel to Australia has been relatively easy; for others, it has been impossible. Varying visa entitlements also mean that, even among those who do manage to escape, some people have work rights, health entitlements and access to a wide range of services, while others are barely surviving. Concerns have been expressed by the refugee sector, affected communities, experts and Parliamentary inquiries about these divergent and, at times, inadequate approaches. As the Refugee Council of Australia has observed, ‘the measures have been uneven, unpredictable and in some cases, created significant gaps in critical support including access to health, education and employment’.3 This Policy Brief proposes a framework for humanitarian emergencies which could be activated in whole or in part, depending on the circumstances. The framework would be additional and complementary to Australia’s existing Refugee and Humanitarian Program, and it would provide an equitable and robust foundation to enable agile responses that could be quickly tailored to specific conditions. It envisages both physical and legal mechanisms to facilitate people’s safe and swift departure; clear lines of authority; processes for consultation across different levels of government and with relevant stakeholders; identified reception facilities for evacuees (if physical evacuation is necessary); and a visa with appropriate supports and pathways to durable solutions,4 including for affected individuals who are already in Australia when a humanitarian emergency is declared.5 To be effective, the framework would require multi-sectoral engagement, planning and coordination, particularly in terms of facilitating arrivals and ensuring that people in Australia are properly supported. Its implementation must be human-centred and supported by trauma-informed approaches that recognise and promote people’s dignity, agency and human rights, with special attention given to those with particular needs or in vulnerable circumstances.6 While existing frameworks, such as the federal Australian Government Crisis Management Framework (AGCMF)7 and state-based DISPLANS may be instructive, none provides an adequate template for present purposes (see Recommendations 2 and 3). The recommendations in this Policy Brief align with and complement proposals by other key actors in the refugee sector, most notably the Refugee Council of Australia and Settlement Services International, and we thank them for their positive engagement and insights. Australia has an opportunity to envision a bold, dynamic and forward-looking framework to protect people in humanitarian emergencies. It is a chance to build upon good practices from historical and comparative responses, signalling Australia’s clear commitment to international solidarity and responsibility-sharing.8 Furthermore, as a leading resettlement state, Australia has the capacity to demonstrate how States can respond to humanitarian emergencies in a timely, well considered and compassionate manner.
Topic:
Humanitarian Crisis, Protection, and Migration Policy
Political Geography:
Australia

23. Australia and the Resilient Pacific Islands

Author:
Andrea Gleason
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Australia is committed to delivering at least AUD 700 million in climate finance to the Pacific and investing in climate-resilient infrastructure across the region, including through the Australian Infrastructure Financing Facility for the Pacific.
Topic:
Climate Change, Economics, Infrastructure, Climate Finance, and Resilience
Political Geography:
Australia and Pacific Islands

24. Indian Ocean Security Means More Will Be Asked of US Allies

Author:
Benjamin Reilly and Peter Dean
Publication Date:
02-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Ongoing disruptions in the Gulf of Aden and the vulnerability of other key Indian Ocean bottlenecks in the Straits of Hormuz or Malacca... [H]ighlight an inconvenient truth: the country with the most to lose from a disruption of the Indian Ocean today is China...
Topic:
Security, Maritime Commerce, and Economy
Political Geography:
China, India, Australia, West Asia, United States of America, and Indian Ocean

25. Understated and Sometimes Contentious: A Perspective on the US-Australia Alliance in Southeast Asia

Author:
Ja Ian Chong
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Ja Ian Chong, Associate Professor of Political Science at National University of Singapore, explains that "[the] Australian-United States alliance is probably one of the most under-appreciated and misunderstood security partnerships in Southeast Asia," and it "helps undergird the status quo in Southeast Asia."
Topic:
International Relations, Security, Alliance, and Strategic Partnerships
Political Geography:
Australia, Southeast Asia, and United States of America

26. Strategic Partners or Fickle Friends? Indonesia’s Perceptions of the US-Australia Defense and Security Relationship

Author:
Lina Alexandra and Pieter Pandie
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
Dr. Lina A. Alexndra and Mr. Pieter Pandie, Head of the International Relations Department and Researcher at Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Jakarta, respectfully, explain that "while [Indonesia] certainly considers Australia and the United States as key partners in navigating the region's security landscape... Indonesia has desired a more independent Australia, given its proximity"
Topic:
Security, Regional Security, Perception, Defense Cooperation, and Strategic Partnerships
Political Geography:
Indonesia, Australia, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

27. ​​Vietnamese Perspective on the Significance of the US-Australia Alliance in Southeast Asian Security​

Author:
Bich T. Tran
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
​Dr. Bich Tran​, ​Postdoctoral Fellow at National University of Singapore and Adjunct Fellow Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.​, ​examines the implications of the alliance for Southeast Asian security from the perspective of Vietnam, a country that has long pursued a policy of non-alignment while actively engaging with both the United States and Australia.​
Topic:
International Relations, Bilateral Relations, Alliance, Regional Security, and Strategic Partnerships
Political Geography:
Vietnam, Australia, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

28. ​​The Australia-US Alliance from a Thai Perspective: An Unbreakable or Unpinnable Partnership?​

Author:
Jittipat Poonkham
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
East-West Center
Abstract:
​Dr. Jittipat Poonkham​, ​ Associate Professor of International Relations at Thammasat University​, ​argues that "AUKUS, as well as the Australia-US alliance, seems to be an “unpinnable” alliance in the sense that it cannot be firmly pinned down in Thailand’s strategic mindset."​
Topic:
International Relations, Economics, Partnerships, Alliance, and AUKUS
Political Geography:
Australia, Thailand, Southeast Asia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

29. The Rise of the Free and Open Indo-Pacific and the Challenge of Deterrence

Author:
Kenneth R. Weinstein and William Chou
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
The late Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe first introduced the concept of a free and open Indo-Pacific (FOIP) in July 2016. Over the past eight years, FOIP has redefined the geopolitics of Asia, becoming central to the strategic visions of Japan, the United States, Australia, India, South Korea, key European nations, and the European Union. Every nation that has adopted FOIP has developed its own version of the concept. But FOIP still repositions the strategic geography of Asia, broadening the region from the Asia-Pacific, which placed a dominant China at the center, to the Pacific and Indian Oceans. This shift highlights the critical role of the four large democracies that comprise the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad)—Japan, India, the US, and Australia—a partnership the states revived with the ascent of FOIP. FOIP, moreover, offers a conceptual counter to the strategy of China’s One Belt, One Road (also known as the Belt and Road Initiative, or BRI) by engaging Australia and Europe on the importance of economic development assistance for, and investment in, Southeast Asia. The Trump administration’s rapid adoption of FOIP—the first time an ally’s strategic concept became central to US grand strategy—deepened America and Japan’s strategic alignment, which encouraged Tokyo to become more engaged in security and encouraged the US to become more engaged in economic development. The concept has made immense contributions to Indo-Pacific connectivity, prosperity, peace, and security. It has also been central to the Biden administration’s efforts to move away from the traditional hub-and-spoke alliance in which US partners worked directly with Washington as the hub but not with not each other, toward a lattice architecture in which like-minded allies (such as Australia, Japan, South Korea and the Philippines) are linked to each other in a mutually reinforcing effort to meet the region’s security challenges. However, a Hudson Institute tabletop exercise conducted for this study showed the limitations of FOIP as a strategic doctrine. Specifically, it cannot induce either friendly or less-friendly ASEAN countries to openly aid Taiwan if the People’s Republic of China seeks either to invade or impose a blockade. FOIP, nonetheless, remains central to promoting prosperity and connectivity in the Indo-Pacific. In the aftermath of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, Prime Minister Fumio Kishida of Japan refashioned FOIP and focused on promoting agreement around minimal international norms that Russia violated. To enhance regional trust, Kishida highlighted an “Indo-Pacific way,” which would enhance regional resilience by mitigating natural disasters through cooperation under Japanese leadership and enhancing maritime security. Herein lies the security paradox behind FOIP: The concept can extend the network of partners and allies dedicated to Indo-Pacific security. This, in turn, may reduce the burden America bears by shifting it to other nations. But for the time being, FOIP rests upon the foundation of US deterrence.
Topic:
Security, Foreign Policy, Alliance, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
Japan, India, Australia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

30. Deterring China: Imposing Nonmilitary Costs to Preserve Peace in the Taiwan Strait

Author:
John Lee and Lavina Lee
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Hudson Institute
Abstract:
The United States, Australia, and other allies have spent decades downplaying the prospect of conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC), offering Beijing incentives and concessions to assuage its ambitions, and managing their differences with China by seeking to deescalate tensions when they arose. In more recent times, when there is an emerging consensus that the decades-long approach to China has failed, policymakers have elevated deterrence as the urgent priority. This report makes the following key points. First, the case for urgency in the context of deterring Chinese force against Taiwan is clear.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Foreign Policy, Sanctions, and Deterrence
Political Geography:
China, Taiwan, Australia, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific