Conflict in the East China Sea: would ANZUS apply?

This paper analyses the circumstances under which conflict in the East China Sea could occur and the implications for Australia. Executive summary Tensions between China and Japan have ratcheted up in recent years to the point where their territorial dispute over islands in the East China Sea is seen as among the region’s most dangerous flashpoints. The prospect of Sino-Japanese conflict over these islands is one that cannot be taken lightly by Australia. Economically, three of our four leading trading partners are located in Northeast Asia, while sea lanes vital to Australian trade run through the waters of the East China Sea. Strategically and politically, two US allies are based in this region and America retains a strong forward military presence there. This paper starts from the premise that insufficient attention has been given to the potential ramifications for Australia of conflict in the East China Sea, particularly in terms of whether Australia’s alliance obligations with the United States could embroil Canberra in a conflict. The paper is motivated in part by Defence Minister Johnston’s June 2014 remarks stating that the ANZUS alliance would not commit Australia to a conflict where the US had sent forces to support Japan. While reminiscent of remarks made a decade earlier by then-Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in relation to the prospect of Australian involvement via ANZUS in a Taiwan contingency, Johnston’s assessment has not attracted anywhere near the same level of attention and analysis as those made by Downer in August 2004. The purpose of this paper is to begin to fill this gap in Australia’s public and policy debate by analysing the circumstances under which conflict in the East China Sea could occur and the implications thereof for Australia. The paper answers three questions: 1. What does Australia’s alliance relationship with the US commit Canberra to in the event of conflict in the East China Sea? 2. What are the risks that Australia faces as a result of ANZUS and other associated international commitments? 3. What can be done to better understand and manage these risks

Integrated Asia: Australia's Dangerous New Strategic Geography

Globalization and major power rivalry are creating a China-centric integrated Asian strategic system, drawing together the once-discrete theatres of Northeast, Southeast, South and Central Asia. In his new Centre of Gravity Paper ‘Integrated Asia’, Professor Nick Bisley explores this changing strategic geography. He argues China will sit at the heart of a strategic system which will have maritime and continental dimensions but it will not be able to dominate it or replicate US primacy. US influence in Asia will decline in relative terms and its ability to provide order will be constrained. Nationalist ambition among the region’s giants will make integrated Asia an unstable place where cooperation among the great powers will be much harder to achieve than in the past. As such, Australia needs to reorient its strategic policy to reflect a more integrated Asian strategic system, one that is likely to be much less conducive to its interests than the international environment it has enjoyed over the past four decades or so

Defence diplomacy: is the game worth the candle?

Few defence topics have been as prominent or invested with as much optimism in recent years as defence diplomacy. This paper has been created to explore the issue and help guide policymakers. Foreword Few Defence topics have been as prominent or invested with as much optimism in recent years as defence diplomacy (also called military diplomacy or defence engagement). In response to the growing security challenges of Asia, scholars, policymakers and practitioners have looked for ways to build confidence, decrease the risk and impact of accidents and encourage peaceful dispute resolution. Defence diplomacy, namely the practice of military and defence officials engaging their overseas counterparts, is increasingly regarded as a vital way to achieve these aims. Given the importance of this topic, a special Centre of Gravity paper has been created to explore the issue and help guide policymakers. This edition features six short papers, each with a different take and policy recommendation. The authors were asked the same question ‘Is the game worth the candle?’ and while their answers focus largely on Australia there are lessons and implications from their findings for the entire region. Brendan Taylor, the head of the Strategic & Defence Studies Centre begins the special edition calling for a stocktake of current efforts, in a bid to understand what has worked and what resources it requires. He is joined by two colleagues, John Blaxland who argues strongly in favour of an expanded defence diplomacy program and Hugh White who urges caution about the strategic influence of the practice. To complement these views, Nick Bisley, Executive Director La Trobe Asia, highlights the need for realistic ambitions. Lieutenant General (Ret.) Peter Leahy draws on his distinguished career in the ADF to detail how defence diplomacy occurs in practice and why it matters. Finally, See Seng Tan, Deputy Director of the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies in Singapore provides a regional perspective on Australia’s defence diplomacy. The authors of these papers don’t agree with each other, and that was precisely why they were invited to contribute. But some common themes are clear. Such as the need for a clear —and public — strategy along with integrating defence diplomacy into the efforts of other parts of government. Together these six papers provide insight into the practice and potential of defence diplomacy. This special edition also marks a re-launch of the Centre of Gravity Series. While some of the design may change, the focus remains the same: inviting some of the best analysts from Australia and around the world to provide short, accessible papers on the key questions facing Australian strategic affairs

To choose or not to choose: how to deal with China's growing power and influence

This paper collects 10 items published on the ASPI blog The Strategist by eight authors on one of the most important public policy issues of this decade and beyond: how to deal with China’s growing power and influence. The hope is that this debate will start to identify points of shared thinking and expose the areas where further work is needed to improve the quality of policy outcomes. ASPI will continue to publish on the topic. There is no more important subject for the future of Australia and for a stable Asia–Pacific

Defence Diplomacy: Is the Game Worth the Candle?

Few Defence topics have been as prominent or invested with as much optimism in recent years as defence diplomacy. This special Centre of Gravity paper has been created to explore the issue and help guide policymakers. It features contributions from 6 authors including Brendan Taylor, John Blaxland, Hugh White, Nick Bisley, Peter Leahy and See Seng Tan

No hedging in Canberra : the Australian-U.S. alliance in the "Asian Century"

For more about the East-West Center, see http://www.eastwestcenter.org/Nick Bisley, Professor of International Relations at La Trobe University, Australia, and Visiting Fellow at the East-West Center in Washington, explains that “Australia has made up its mind about its strategic policy: it has bound itself to the United States and will do all that it can to support America’s conception of regional and global order.

Australia's foreign and defense policies after the September 2013 election: Howard 2.0?

For more about the East-West Center, see http://www.eastwestcenter.org/Nick Bisley, Professor of International Relations at La Trobe University, Australia, explains that "Abbott has plainly signaled that he sees this government as a continuation of that which was voted out in 2007.

The real Pacific solution: a NATO for Asia

Nick Bisley of Monash University writes that recent security crises in the Asia-Pacific region illustrate the institutional limits of security in the region and the pressing need to rethink the broader basis of regional security and more specifically, the nature of the American alliance system. Bisley argues that security in the region requires a multidimensional approach of the kind which the alliance system cannot deliver due to its military bias. The regional security environment, with its blend of old-fashioned power politics and non-traditional transnational threats, requires something which can provide the military heft of an alliance system with the diplomatic and logistical capacity of an international organization

Conflict in the East China Sea: Would ANZUS Apply?

This paper starts from the premise that insufficient attention has been given to the potential ramifications for Australia of conflict in the East China Sea, particularly in terms of whether Australia's alliance obligations with the United States could embroil Canberra in a conflict. The paper is motivated in part by Defence Minister Johnston's June 2014 remarks stating that the ANZUS alliance would not commit Australia to a conflict where the US had sent forces to support Japan. While reminiscent of remarks made a decade earlier by then-Foreign Minister Alexander Downer in relation to the prospect of Australian involvement via ANZUS in a Taiwan contingency, Johnston's assessment has not attracted anywhere near the same level of attention and analysis as those made by Downer in August 2004. This research seeks to fill this gap in Australia's public and policy debate by analysing the circumstances under which conflict in the East China Sea could occur and the implications thereof for Australia. The paper answers three questions: 1. What does Australia's alliance relationship with the US commit Canberra to in the event of conflict in the East China Sea? 2. What are the risks that Australia faces as a result of ANZUS and other associated international commitments? 3. What can be done to better understand and manage these risks?This report was commisioned by Australia-China Relations Institut