Search

Begin New Search Publishing Institution Australian National University Department of International Relations Publication Year within 10 Years

1. Australia and the Korean Crisis: Confronting the limits of influence

Author:
Andrew O'Neil, Brendan Taylor, and William T. Tow
Publication Date:
04-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian National University Department of International Relations
Abstract:
In this Centre of Gravity paper, Professors O’Neil, Taylor and Tow argued that the apparent optimism surrounding the upcoming ‘season of summitry’ on the Korean Peninsula should be tempered by the fact that there are potential risks attached to engaging the North Korean leadership without preconditions. They argue these include legitimising its weapons of mass destruction (WMD) programs, alliance decoupling, and a serious deterioration in Asia’s strategic climate if the Trump-Kim summit fails to deliver concrete results. Building on a series of important policy roundtables in Australia, along with decades of experience, these three senior figures argue that Australian policy makers should look to develop a more integrated national approach to the Korean Peninsula. Policymakers should anticipate and prepare for a full range of possible outcomes. A clear definition and articulation of Australia’s considerable national interests in Northeast Asia—independent from those of the US—should be derived. Initially, the Turnbull Government should begin a whole-of-government review, managed by the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. This process would identify and implement policy initiatives where Australia can pursue a distinctly national approach to safeguarding its long-term interests on the Korean Peninsula, including future bilateral relations with North Korea.
Topic:
Diplomacy, International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, United Nations, and Military Strategy
Political Geography:
Asia, South Korea, North Korea, Australia, and Pyongyang

2. Debating the Quad

Author:
Euan Graham, Chengxin Pan, Ian Hall, Rikki Kersten, Benjamin Zala, and Sarah Percy
Publication Date:
03-2018
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian National University Department of International Relations
Abstract:
In this Centre of Gravity paper, six of Australia’s leading scholars and policy experts debate Australian participation in the ‘Australia-India-Japan-United States consultations on the Indo-Pacific’ - known universally as the ‘Quad’. A decade since its first iteration, the revival of the Quad presents significant questions for Australia and the regional order. Is the Quad a constructive partnership of the region’s major powers to safeguard regional stability, uphold the rules-based order and promote security cooperation? Is it a concert of democracies seeking to contain China? Or is it an emerging strategic alignment that risks precipitating the very confrontation with China it seeks to avoid? Or is it something else entirely? Euan Graham opens the debate by arguing that the Quad represents a rare second chance for Australia to cooperate with regional powers who have a shared interest is the maintenance of stability in Asia through the preservation of a balance of power. In addition to constraining China’s strategic choices beyond its maritime periphery, Dr. Graham argues that the Quad’s revival aims to send a concerted strategic signal to China along the four compass points of the Indo-Pacific region, but sufficiently restrained to avoid significant blowback from Beijing. Chengxin Pan responds that instead of forcing China to change tack, the Quad, by exacerbating China’s strategic vulnerability, will achieve precisely the opposite: prompting it to further strengthen its military capabilities. Dr. Pan argues that the nature of China’s challenge to the existing regional order is actually geoeconomic in design, as evidenced by the Belt and Road Initiative. To meet this challenge, however, the Quad’s military response is far from the right answer or an effective alternative. Ian Hall next argues that the Quad is neither a proto-alliance nor an instrument for containing China. Given that these states have so far failed to advance a coherent and coordinated line on Chinese initiatives to transform the region, Dr. Hall notes that the Quad offers something more prosaic and evolutionary: a forum for discussion and information exchange intended to lead to better policy coordination between like-minded states with a stake in the rules-based order. Rikki Kersten notes that the Japanese government wants Quad 2.0 to be seen as a Japanese initiative because it aspires to lead an ethical endeavour that reaches beyond the Asia-Pacific region. This represents a stepchange in post-war Japanese foreign and security policy thinking. Japan under Abe is seeking to harness rising insecurity to underpin its own regional leadership credentials and enhance the geographical scope of its security policy ambition. Benjamin Zala responds that the potential risks associated with sending containment-like signals to Beijing in the short-term and the potential for misperceptions over ambiguous commitments during a future crisis in the longer-term clearly outweigh the benefits of the current vague aspiration to cooperation with no clear purpose. Dr. Zala also warns against blurring the lines between formal military alliances and strategic partnerships like the Quad which increase the odds of miscalculation during times of power transition. Finally, Sarah Percy rounds out the debate by arguing that discussions of the Quad’s high politics have thus far obscured the more practical and interesting questions about how it might function and contribute to maritime security. Dr. Percy notes that that the day-to-day operations of most navies are focused on the more proximate security challenges posed by maritime crime. The Quad would yield tangible and possibly lasting benefits from such cooperation.
Topic:
Conflict Prevention, Diplomacy, Military Affairs, and Maritime
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, China, India, Asia, and Australia

3. 100 Days of Trump: What Should Asia Do?

Author:
Brendan Taylor, Greg Fealy, David envall, Bates Gill, Feng Zhang, Benjamin Zala, Michael Wesley, Shiro Armstrong, Anthony Bergin, David Brewster, Robin Davies, Jane Golley, Stephen Howes, Llewelyn Hughes, Frank Jotzo, Warwick McKibbin, Rory Medcalf, Tessa Morris-Suzuki, Steven Rood, and Matthew Sussex
Publication Date:
01-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian National University Department of International Relations
Abstract:
Once again, Trump has broken the mould. The 100-day mark is traditionally used to assess a new administration’s progress in advancing its policy agenda. With Trump, that’s impossible. In foreign policy at least, it’s more appropriate to ask whether at the 100-day mark the Trump administration is any closer to actually having a policy agenda. In no region is this question more pressing than in the Asia Pacific. The Asia Pacific is home to two-thirds of the world’s population, two-thirds of the global economy, and provides two-thirds of all global economic growth. It is the arena for the most serious challenge to America’s international role since it emerged as a global power a century ago. It is also the region that hosts six of the world’s nine nuclear states, and four of those have the fastest growing stockpiles and the most unpredictable nuclear doctrines. Few would dispute that for over 70 years, the United States has both stabilised the Asia Pacific’s fractious strategic affairs and underpinned its rapid economic development. And so the possibility of a radically different American role in the region instituted by the least conventional President in living memory is of vital interest not only to the residents of the region, but to the world as a whole. We asked experts from across the ANU College of Asia and the Pacific to watch and assess the impact of Trump on the Asia Pacific during the first hundred days of his Presidency – and how the region, and Australia should respond. It’s the sort of exercise that the largest and most comprehensive collection of expertise on the Asia Pacific on the planet can do with relish – and with a customary policy eye. The result is a fascinating and varied portrait of how the new administration has affected the world’s most dynamic region, and how the region is likely to react. When viewed together, these essays allow us to reflect on three questions that will be crucial for this region and the world over the next four years and perhaps beyond. What have we learned about Trump and his administration? What do the region’s reactions to Trump tell us about the regional role of the United States in the future? And what do these responses tell us about the Asia Pacific, and its likely trajectory in the near- and mid-term future?
Topic:
International Cooperation, Nuclear Weapons, Military Strategy, and Geopolitics
Political Geography:
United States, Japan, Indonesia, Asia, South Korea, North Korea, and Australia

4. Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Domestic Processes and Foreign Assistance

Author:
Cecilia Jacob
Publication Date:
07-2017
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian National University Department of International Relations
Abstract:
On 28–29 October 2016, the Department of International Relations at The Australian National University, along with the Asia Pacific Centre for the Responsibility to Protect at the University of Queensland, and with support from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, hosted the conference Implementing the Responsibility to Protect: Domestic Processes and Foreign Assistance. The conference was attended by academics, including leading experts in the field, and members and representatives of a wide range of government agencies, the diplomatic community, international organisations, and civil society organisations. Two distinguished keynotes were delivered by the Honorable Gareth Evans, ANU Chancellor and co-chair of the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS), and Ivan Šimonović, Special Adviser on the Responsibility to Protect to the UN Secretary-General (SASG). The purpose of the conference was to bring together policymakers, practitioners, and scholars working on areas related to the implementation of the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), primarily in the areas of state-level responsibility to prevent mass atrocities and protect civilian populations (what we call Pillar One of the R2P), and international assistance to states to fulfil this responsibility (Pillar Two). Recognising that the principle of R2P has gained significant traction within the international community since it was first introduced in the 2001 report The Responsibility to Protect, the conference sought to transcend longstanding debates over acceptance and legitimacy of R2P as a norm. Rather, it sought to clarify what the implementation of R2P entails for the policy and practitioner community, and to push forward new lines of academic inquiry and research that could support the implementation agenda. At its heart, R2P implementation is about strengthening the capacity of states to prevent atrocities from occurring in the first place. Prevention requires enhancing the resilience of societies that face the risk of atrocities through improved access to security, justice, and the rule of law. Effective mass atrocity prevention requires going local – understanding the dynamics of mass atrocities in their specific historical and social contexts; and going international – ensuring that international actors effectively align their priorities, strategies, and resourcing on atrocity prevention in ways that support local and national needs. This is an ambitious agenda, and experts from a range of fields were invited to address the practical implications of implementing R2P across numerous sites. The central themes included atrocity prevention, international accountability, human rights, international humanitarian law, justice for legacies of violence, foreign policy, development cooperation, peacekeeping, and civil–military assistance. The conference brought together different communities working on aspects that support the goals of R2P in order to enhance knowledge across thematic divides, and contributed to clarifying the practical implications that commitment to R2P implementation entails for these communities across the spectrum. This report contains the text of the keynote speeches, and condensed summaries of the panel discussions. These can be read together to provide a comprehensive synthesis of the debates occurring across the spectrum, or can be read as stand-alone sections for those with specific interest in a particular aspect of the R2P implementation.
Topic:
Genocide, Human Rights, International Cooperation, and United Nations
Political Geography:
Africa, Middle East, Asia, North Korea, Philippines, Syria, and Congo

5. A Crime Pattern Analysis of the Illegal Ivory Trade in China

Author:
Jiang Nan
Publication Date:
06-2015
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Australian National University Department of International Relations
Abstract:
The illegal ivory trade fuels illegal elephant poaching in both Africa and Asia. The illegal ivory trade in China is considered a key threat to the survival of the elephant species: since 2009, China has become the largest illegal ivory market in the world. Although China has uncovered a great number of cases of illegal ivory trade with the seizure of illegal ivory in the past decade, this trade is still growing. A deeper understanding of the nature and patterns of illegal ivory trade through an analysis of ivory seizure data should improve the efficiency of efforts to prevent the illegal ivory trade in China. This paper analyses data on 106 seizures of illegal ivory that was collected from Chinese news reports between 1999 and 2014, with a particular focus on its frequency and illegal trade ‘hotspot’ locations in China. The analysis found three illegal ivory trade cycles (2001–2005, 2006–2010, and 2011–2014) and four hotspots. Preventing the illegal ivory trade will require more international cooperation and coordination between China and other countries.
Topic:
International Cooperation, Trade, Illegal Trade, and Ivory
Political Geography:
Africa, China, and Asia