Rising to meet the challenge and coordinating the national response

Across the Indo-Pacific, competing economic, political and strategic interests, designs and ambitions are beginning to clash, flying in contrast to the projections of many historians at the end of the Cold War. 

Driven by an unprecedented economic transformation, propelling once developing nations onto the world stage, the region, the globe and its established powers are having to adjust to a dramatically different global power paradigm – one committed to undermining and influencing the fabric of Australian and Western democracies.

In this era of increasing nation-state competition, driven largely by the great power competition between the United States and China and subsequent impact on nations, Australia is finding itself at the epicentre of the new global paradigm with unique economic, political and strategic implications for the nation’s national security. 

National security in the contemporary context is best defined by US academic Charles Maier: “National security... is best described as a capacity to control those domestic and foreign conditions that the public opinion of a given community believes necessary to enjoy its own self-determination or autonomy, prosperity and wellbeing.”

Recognising the traditional “hard power” elements of national security policy and strategy, which is the key responsibility of any government – namely, elements of political, economic and military power – Australia has long enjoyed a period of relative stability and consistency that has empowered the nation, but also engendered a sense of complacency.

Australia has long had a tough relationship with the “tyranny of distance”. On one hand, the nation’s populace has treated it with disdain and hostility, while Australia’s political and strategic leaders have recognised the importance of geographic isolation.

The rise of Indo-Pacific Asia means the tyranny of distance has been replaced by a “predicament of proximity”.

VIEW ALL

China, India, Indonesia, Thailand, Japan and several other regional nations are reshaping the economic and strategic paradigms with an unprecedented period of economic, political and arms build-up, competing interests and rising animosity towards the post-World War II order Australia is a pivotal part of in the region.

This rapidly evolving global environment, combined with the increasing instability of the US administration and its apparent apprehension to intervene or at least maintain the global rules-based order following the radical shift in US politics, also forces Australia to reassess the strategic calculus – embracing a radically new approach to national security strategy and policy. 

China in particular is garnering growing attention across the length and breadth of Australia’s public policy debate, with recent revelations of active espionage and influence peddling operations by Beijing, specifically targeting Australia’s democratic processes and thinly veiled threats to the nation’s long-term economic and strategic security. 

We’re halfway there: Individual strategies and plans mean nothing without an overarching strategy

Australia has recently undergone a period of modernisation and expansion within its national security apparatus, from new white papers in Defence and Foreign Affairs through to well-articulated and resourced defence industrial capability plans, export strategies and the like in an attempt to position Australia well within the rapidly evolving geostrategic and political order of the Indo-Pacific. 

Each of the strategies in and of themselves serve critical and essential roles within the broader national security debate. 

However, the cohesive, long-term nature of the strategies deployed by the nation’s potential competitors limits the efficacy of these respective strategies and policies when they are viewed and implemented in isolation. 

Defence Connect recently spoke with former Army Major General (Ret’d) and senator for NSW Jim Molan to discuss the importance of developing and implementing a holistic national security strategy. The senator articulated the precarious situation the nation finds itself in, telling Defence Connect: “We have managed to get away with not having a national security strategy only because we have lived in a tranquil region since 1945. But our strategic environment is changing quickly, and we need to prepare for a turbulent future. Developing a national security strategy would be a vital first step towards building the capacity we need to face the potential challenges that are coming.”

“Most Australians can be forgiven for believing that successive Defence white papers, in conjunction with Foreign Affairs white papers and reviews into energy, including liquid fuels, water and food security, constitute a true national security strategy. Unfortunately, without the guidance of an overarching national security strategy, we get lost in the sub-strategies,” Senator Molan explained. 

A minister or special envoy to support the long-term national security agenda? 

The individual nature of the aforementioned respective strategies, combined with the competing interests of the respective portfolios and departments are further exacerbated by a lack of cohesive, coordinating authority managing the direction of the broader national interest and implementation of a resulting strategy. 

It is important to recognise that this realisation does diminish the good work done by the respective ministers, assistant ministers and opposition representatives. But recognising the limitations of siloed approaches to the increasingly holistic nature of national security in the 21st century requires a coordinated, cohesive effort to combine all facets of contemporary national security policy. 

Senator Molan expanded on this, explaining to Defence Connect, “Australia has had one previous attempt at putting a national security strategy in place under the Gillard government in 2013. Although it was a decent first attempt, it has already been overtaken by events. Terrorism was the principal security challenge it focused on, and although the threat of terrorism has not disappeared, other changes in the world are demanding our focus.

“The world has changed dramatically in the six years since the release of the last national security strategy. Of primary concern is the decline of American power. At the end of the Cold War, the US planned for the contingency of fighting, and winning, ‘two and a half wars’ simultaneously. This meant it could wage two large-scale regional wars and a small-scale conflict elsewhere and prevail in all of them.”

Australia emerged from the Second World War as a middle power, essential to maintaining the post-war economic, political and strategic power paradigm established and led by the US.

This relationship, established as a result of the direct threat to Australia, replaced Australia’s strategic relationship of dependence on the British Empire and continues to serve as the basis of the nation’s strategic policy direction and planning.

Recognising this, Australia’s security and prosperity are directly influenced by the stability and prosperity of the Indo-Pacific, meaning Australia must be directly engaged as both a benefactor and leader in all matters related to strategic, economic and political security, serving as either a replacement or complementary force to the role played by the US – should the US commitment or capacity be limited.

In order to maximise the nation’s position, prosperity and security, is it time to introduce a role of a minister for national security or special envoy role to support the Prime Minister and respective Ministers, both within the traditional confines of “national security” like Defence and Foreign Affairs, to include Infrastructure, Industry, Health, Agriculture and the like?  

Your thoughts

Australia’s position and responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific region will depend on the nation’s ability to sustain itself economically, strategically and politically.

Despite the nation’s virtually unrivalled wealth of natural resources, agricultural and industrial potential, there is a lack of a cohesive national security strategy integrating the development of individual yet complementary public policy strategies to support a more robust Australian role in the region.

Enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities in supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia.

Shifting the public discussion away from the default Australian position of “it is all a little too difficult, so let’s not bother” will provide unprecedented economic, diplomatic, political and strategic opportunities for the nation.

However, as events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain a secondary power or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?

Let us know your thoughts and ideas about the development of a holistic national security strategy and the role of a minister for national security to coordinate the nation’s response to mounting pressure from nation-state challengers in the comments section below, or get in touch with This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.