I'm not sure what has changed in Australia's strategic environment that justifies this:
Australia clearly faces a turning point as it confronts the new global situation created by the rise of the 21st century authoritarian powers, and the return of geopolitics as well as the need to radically rethink globalization.
Does Australia assume that the challenge is to protect the rules-based order and to contribute to global efforts, often but not exclusively led by the United States: Somehow China and Russia can become normal allies and by largely peaceful means can work a coda to the inherited “rules based order.”
Or is it about geopolitical contest and conflict with the 21st century authoritarian powers at the heart of the challenge?
What turning point?
Australia is in the process of building a military with the core being F-35s, large submarines, and high quality ground forces capable of being dispatched abroad. Not for solo operations but, as a small power, in cooperation with America and other allies.
Didn't Australia decide to be a conventional shield and sword to leverage American assistance?
So this is all pretty settled already--over at least a decade--isn't it?
Certainly, the author in the initial link doesn't seem to think anything has changed--and over a longer period than I've blogged about:
My position on this is clear and has been from 1991 on. In that year, I did work for senior DoD officials where I outlined how Air and Naval modernization coupled with a strategy of backing regional influentials would provide a key way for the U.S. to be a key global power, but not a superpower.
What is different now in Australia's strategic situation from that decade-old observation? Is it really about Trump? If so, get a grip down under.
