Australia, what is our strategic intent?

Without sounding repetitive or hyperbolic, our world, and indeed, our region is undergoing a major reorientation in the established balance of economic, political, and strategic power.

Nowhere is this clearer than in the rapidly evolving relationship between the United States and the world’s emerging superpower in the People’s Republic of China, as the two great powers tentatively circle one another, jabbing into the air like boxers in the ring.

This competition has only been further exacerbated by the extraordinary comments made by the US Secretary of State Antony Blinken in Beijing overnight, where following a meeting with the Chinese President, Xi Jinping, he declared: “We do not support Taiwan independence. We remain opposed to any unilateral changes to the status quo by either side. We expect the peaceful resolution of cross strait differences,” effectively bringing an end to the era of “strategic ambiguity”.

The global shift towards multipolarity is only reinforced by the increasing multipolarity of the world beyond the “main event” as the increasing prominence of the BRICS member states, namely Brazil, Russia (albeit somewhat limited), India, South Africa, and the emerging list of BRICS “partners” or “adjacent” states eager to hasten the collapse of the post-Second World War order.

With each of these nations nailing their respective flags to the mast of this new era of great power competition, they have taken action to align their domestic and international policies behind a unified strategic intent: the collapse of the post-Second World War economic, political, and strategic order and the rise of a contested, autocratic-heavy, deglobalised and multipolar world.

Meanwhile, Australia continues to indulge an attitude of “she’ll be right” despite a recognition that we live in an era of unprecedented upheaval and change across the global stage, not least of all in the Indo-Pacific.

Steering into the trope of the “Lucky Country” as popularised by journalist Donald Horne, Australia has failed to leverage the opportunities presented by the post-Cold War period of opportunity to define a “strategic intent” of our own, now leaving us dangerously dependent upon a global order that is rapidly fraying and great power “friends” that are equally coming apart at the seams.

VIEW ALL

But first things first, what exactly is “strategic intent” and what does it look like for Australia in the era of great power competition?

Understanding the concept of ‘strategic intent’

While we have seen attempts by the current Albanese and previous Coalition governments to at least, in part, identify some components of a broader “strategic intent”, think “Australia should be a renewable energy superpower” or plans for a sovereign defence industrial base, these priorities are often framed through rather nebulous prisms and created in a bubble of isolation, separate to the broader national narrative and plan.

Equally, you will be forgiven for thinking that the very term “strategic intent” sounds like the verbose brainchild of some management consultant guru attempting to justify their exorbitant fees, and to a large degree, you’re probably pretty close to being on the money, that, however, doesn’t undermine the legitimacy and power of said concept.

In its strictest sense, “strategic intent” can be defined as, “Strategic intent can be understood as the philosophical base of the strategic management process. It implies the purpose which an organisation endeavours of achieving. It is a statement, that provides a perspective of the means, which will lead the organisation reach the vision in the long run. Strategic intent gives an idea of what the organisation desires to attain in future. It answers the question what the organisation strives or stands for? It indicates the long-term market position, which the organisation desires to create or occupy and the opportunity for exploring new possibilities.”

If you’re someone who read that definition and thought, “What the hell does that gibberish mean?”, rest assured you’re not alone. So perhaps it is easier to understand when we break the concept of “strategic intent” down into its individual components.

While defining and establishing a clear “strategic intent” is of paramount importance, the mechanisms which shape the foundational principles of the plan are equally important as they help to identify the vision and shape the mission, shape the messaging and model of delivery and ultimately to measure the success against clearly-defined objectives.

Critically, the concept of “strategic intent” establishes a hierarchy of:

• Vision: Identifying the blueprint of the nation’s future position — effectively describing the aspirations and final outcome of where the nation wants to be at the end of a set period of time.
• Mission: Identifies the nation’s goals and the mechanisms for delivering the goals, while also articulating the reason for the existence of these objectives.
• National definition: Seeks to explain, articulate the objectives to the constituency, also providing a means for better identifying strategic choices.
• National model: This one is pretty straightforward, within the confines of the existing democratic system that governs Australia.
• Goals and objectives: Represent the base measurement of the broader “strategic intent” — goals are the end results that the organisation attempts to achieve, while objectives are time-based measurable actions, which help in the accomplishment of goals.

Utilising this structure, what should Australia’s “strategic intent” in the era of great power competition be, what should look like as a nation, how long should it take us to achieve it?

Final thoughts

Importantly, in this era of renewed competition between autarchy and democracy, this is a conversation that needs to be had in the open with the Australian people, as ultimately, they will be called upon to help implement it, to consent to the direction, and to defend it should diplomacy fail.

This requires a greater degree of transparency and a culture of collaboration between the nation’s strategic policymakers and elected officials and the constituents they represent and serve — equally, this approach will need to entice the Australian public to once again invest in and believe in the future direction of the nation.

Equally, it is important for us to recognise that while we don’t face these challenges in isolation, each and every nation is and will put its own interests first, the COVID-19 pandemic proved that, therefore we can no longer afford to be blindly altruistic in our approach to the nation’s future, to do so is willful ignorance at best and national vandalism at worst.

To set the scene, as with all good models of “strategic intent”, we must establish a vision, one that isn’t war and peace, but one that clearly articulates our vision for our future in the era of great power competition and could, perhaps, be something as simple as the words of former prime minister and great nation builder, Sir Robert Menzies, who said in 1950: “If we want to make our contribution to the pacification of the world, it is our duty to present to the world the spectacle of a rich country with a great people, with an adequate population — with a population which may justly say to the rest of the world: ‘We are here; we propose to maintain our integrity as a nation; and our warrant for that is that we are using the resources which God has given into our hands’.”

Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. or at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it..