Global turmoil and lockdown leaves Australia increasingly isolated

Across the globe the post-Second World War economic, political and strategic order is coming under siege, driven by mounting waves of civil unrest, more localised tensions in the aftermath of Brexit, growing economic stagnation across the West, concerns about climate change and the increasing geo-strategic competition between the world's great powers. 

Adding further fuel to the fire is the global and more localised impacts of COVID-19, which range from recognising the impact of vulnerable, global supply chains upon national security as many leading nations, long advocates of "closer collaboration and economic integration", grasp at the life boats of nation-state to secure their national interest. 

Despite it's relative isolation, Australia's position as a global trading nation, entrenched in the maintenance and expansion of the post-Second World War order has left the nation at a unique and troubling cross roads, particularly as it's two largest and most influential “great and powerful” friends: the US and the UK appear to be floundering against the tide of history. 

With the spectre of COVID-19 far from diminished across the globe and waves of civil unrest and violence tearing their way across the US, and the UK still under strict lock downs, these two great powers are limited in their capacity to actively and assertively intervene on behalf of their allies around the world, despite intent. 

The fragility of these two nations has prompted many global dictators to take advantage of the absence, as the old saying states: "When the cat is away, the mice will play" leaving Australia and many other allies, including Taiwan, Japan and South Korea, exposed to the whims of nations dedicated to the end of post-war order. 

Nowhere is this more evident then across the Indo-Pacific as an emboldened Beijing continues to punish Australia for pursuing a global inquiry into the origins and China's handling of COVID-19, while also leveraging the diminished presence of the US military in the region to project power and intimidate both Japan and critically, Taiwan. 

This was exemplified by Greg Sheridan, who recently penned a piece titled World a poorer place as American influence torched, in which he articulates: "As American cities burn, they are putting to the torch not only a sense of community and common decency, but, at least for a time, a portion of Washington’s geo-strategic influence and power."

VIEW ALL

It is this changing reality that leaves Australia exposed at a point in time when the world around it is changing and many would argue not for the better as many totalitarian regimes and psuedo-totalitarian regimes use the opportunity to expand their influence and territorial ambitions. 

A rocky road, but some clear opportunities 

Successive Australian leaders have long lauded the nation's position as the South Pacific's "security partner of choice" while much of south-east Asia and the broader Indo-Pacific has viewed the nation with varying degrees of mistrust and tentative disdain, with a firm view that the nation is a lapdog of either the US or the UK, or in some cases both. 

Despite this, the nation has forged some meaningful strategic partnerships, but has always done so from a position of weakness, particularly with our neighbours to the north, with the approach based upon one of "if we do nice things for them now, when they're bigger and stronger they will remember".

This approach conflicts with our relationship in the south Pacific, where Australia actively and consistently throws its weight around against nations with little more then constabulary 'defence forces' largely subsidised by the Australian tax payer. 

However, the rapidly evolving geo-strategic, economic and political paradigm now kicked into overdrive means Australia can no longer afford to take such a passive approach to the Indo-Pacific, particularly as the nation's major strategic benefactors, the US and UK, continue to struggle to resolve their own domestic challenges. 

Undoubtedly, this will require a paradigm shift from Australia's policy makers, central to this is viewing each and every sector of the public policy sphere as critical to the national interest, particularly when it comes to the nation's economic diversity and competitiveness, political influence and soft power approach to the region. 

This will also require a far more credible, hard power capacity to escalate in defence of Australia's regional interests as well as the realisation that Australia's very real national interests and in particular national security are dependent upon the freedom of navigation across sea lanes, collaborative, 'fair trade' economic partnerships and a willingness on the part of Australia to commit defence personnel independent of other allies to protect the nation's interest. 

However, doing so needs to be done in a considered, long-term manner, with a clear, well articulated and communicated strategy for Australia's future in a region that will continue to rapidly evolve towards a state of increasing Balkanisation, if current regional and global trends are to be followed through to fruition. 

This is something that former Department of Defence, Foreign Affairs and Trade and ASIO chief Dennis Richardson spoke to Paul Kelly of The Australian about, where by Richardson stated: "A strong economy is foundational to national security. But when it comes to putting a whole range of things under the national security banner, my response is ‘no way’. First, it is unnecessary. Second, it would unduly hinder economic growth after the pandemic.

"You don’t want people with national security expertise to be put over and above economists when it comes to economic policy or above medical experts when it comes to pandemics. Putting most things under a national security umbrella would significantly dilute the quality of advice and expertise going to ­government."

Respected strategist and policy expert Alan Dupont added to this, stating: "Despite its terrible toll, the pandemic provides a once-in-a-generation opportunity to unite the country around a security agenda that will reshape how we live in a post-COVID-19 world.

"How this agenda will be constituted and implemented is for ­debate. But security experts increasingly believe national security policy should be more holistic, integrated and focused on making us resilient to such shocks."

Building on this, Dupont proposes a number of possibilities to both stimulate public debate and prompt Australia's political leaders into taking action at a time when the Australian public is demanding not only leadership, but also a plan to capitalise upon the immense opportunity presented by the rise of the Indo-Pacific. 

"In recent weeks, there have been calls for 'smart' sovereignty, less dependence on global supply chains, rejuvenating our vanishingly merchant navy, building a non-military system of national service, hardening the nation’s infrastructure and adopting the idea of total defence," he articulates. 

"All these ideas have merit, and bringing the best of them together in a revamped security strategy won’t be as difficult, or expensive, as traditionalists think. We don’t need to reinvent the wheel, provided governments are willing to learn from our mistakes, build on the national security machinery already in place and work across the political divide to build a new strategic consensus."

These points are perfectly encapsulated by Richardson, who states, "Over the next 10 years we’re going to be faced with decisions either to cut back on the defence capability we require or to increase defence spending beyond 2 per cent.

"The classic trade-off between guns and butter will apply inevitably after the pandemic. But there are balances you need to strike. For example, if you want self-reliance and if you want everything to be Australian-made you’re going to need to increase the defence budget very significantly but you won’t get more capability for it because, by and large, what you get in Australia will cost more than what you can get elsewhere."

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.

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?

Further complicating the nation’s calculations is the declining diversity of the national economy, the ever present challenge of climate change impacting droughts, bushfires and floods, Australia’s energy security and the infrastructure needed to ensure national resilience, prosperity and sovereignty in the 21st century. 

Let us know your thoughts and ideas about the development of a holistic national security strategy to co-ordinate the nation’s response to mounting pressure from nation-state and asymmetric challenges 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..