CONTENDING NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND GLOBAL IMPERATIVES IN AUSTRALIA POST-COLD-WAR DEFENSE AND SECURITY THINKING

Authors
Citation
G. Cheeseman, CONTENDING NATIONAL, REGIONAL AND GLOBAL IMPERATIVES IN AUSTRALIA POST-COLD-WAR DEFENSE AND SECURITY THINKING, The Korean journal of defense analysis, 8(2), 1996, pp. 75
Citations number
94
Categorie Soggetti
International Relations
ISSN journal
10163271
Volume
8
Issue
2
Year of publication
1996
Database
ISI
SICI code
1016-3271(1996)8:2<75:CNRAGI>2.0.ZU;2-M
Abstract
The period following the end of the Cold War has seen Australia's fore ign policy makers place increasing emphasis on the concepts of regiona lism and globalism as means of protecting and advancing the country's national interests. While said to be prompted by the establishment of a more independent and self-reliant defense posture, this trend took m uch longer to be reflected in the country's defense policies. Australi a's early post-Cold War defense considerations continued to be driven by a desire to defend ourselves against threats ''coming from or throu gh'' the region to our north, and to maintain our traditional alliance relationship with the United States. In recent years, Australia's def ense thinking and policies have started, on the surface at least, to f ollow the lead set by its foreign policy and become less nationally an d more regionally and internationally oriented. Australia's alliance r elationship with the United States is being slowly but steadily downgr aded in favor of greater regional engagement and cooperation, and the Defense Department is now prepared to ''seek every opportunity'' to pa rticipate in UN and other multinational operations. This article trace s these develpments and how they are being interpreted. Some suggest t hat there has been a complete convergence and that Australia's defense policies and practices are, once again, being driven by broader, fore ign policy concerns. Others accept some rhetorical convergence but arg ue that Australia's evolving defense and foreign policies continue to differ in several significant respects. In particular, Australian defe nse planners are continuing fundamentally to prepare for the defense o f Australia (and its interests) against the region whereas our foreign policy makers are seeking to engage with Australia's Asian neighbors. A third view, shared by the author, is that the Australia's emerging post-Cold War rhetoric on defense and security is less the product of contending views on ends and means as a new and more ambitious strateg ic discourse aimed at securing continuing support at home while simult aneously extending Australia's and its allies' interests abroad.