Login
iscover
For much of our national history, Australia has struggled with the idea of being an active participant in the world, defaulting instead to an attitude of passivity and deference to larger powers — this needs to change.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Across the globe, whether it is through the advent of artificial intelligence or in the burgeoning realm of bioengineering, next-generation energy or our never-ending pursuit to “boldly go where no person has gone before”, we live in an era of great consequence and upheaval.
This tumultuous era is not only characterised by technological breakthroughs and the marvels of modern science, it is equally an era defined by the very worst of humanity on display, as many nations, including our own grapple with mounting social, economic, and political atomisation and declining cohesion.
In response, we have seen much of the Western world devolve into a social media-driven narcissistic death spiral of distraction, decline and passivity (yes, even our Ukrainian response is relatively passive), meanwhile our adversaries across the geopolitical stage are on the march, taking advantage of our passivity, distraction, and decline.
Nowhere is this better typified than in Australia’s long, often tense relationship with the currents of history and the great power competition that characterises the eternal forward march of history.
Whether it is our culture of dependence on larger, “more consequential” powers like the British Empire and now the United States, or the domestic sociopolitical and increasingly cultural phenomenon of “tall poppy syndrome”, Australia’s engagement with the Indo-Pacific, as it is now known, and the broader globe has largely been defined by passivity.
However, one thing that seems to be overlooked by many policymakers and strategic thinkers is how this culture of deference and passivity now directly clashes with the reality we face with this new era of great power competition, not just globally, but equally for Australia as a nation and a people.
It is important, however, to understand that while we cannot control the actions of other nations, and let’s be realistic, despite the chest puffing by many, our influence over the larger nations is at this point in time limited and has been for the better part of the last five decades, at least, our first and primary responsibility is to our nation.
We have our work cut out for us
Aussies have long prided themselves on never shirking their responsibility or being afraid of a bit of hard work, well, we certainly have our work cut out for us, whether it is facing down the economic headwinds of a burgeoning global recession and a global shift away from the post-Second World War economic order (read the US dollar), mounting domestic political and socio-economic tensions, and of course, the geostrategic competition between the world’s great powers.
The reality of these multifaceted challenges necessitates a multifaceted response and a rather abrupt shift away from Australia’s standard operating procedure, dominated by an attitude of passivity and deference toward a more active, intentional role.
While the Albanese government has presented initiatives like it’s long-awaited Defence Strategic Review, various-net zero strategies, and Rewiring the Nation and advanced manufacturing plans as a shift away from the “she’ll be right” attitude toward a more “intentional” strategy of engagement, collaboration and “impactful projection” in the Indo-Pacific, these often vague, nebulous initiatives fail to shift the dial and account for the realities facing the nation.
Rather, these “strategies”, with their grandiose language, thinly disguised narrative of “business as usual” within the already-fraying global order, serve their purpose of massaging public sentiment and convincing the Australian public into believing that the situation is under control, the post-Second World War order that we depend on for our economic prosperity, political, and strategic stability is facing a few challenges, but again, “she’ll be right”.
This is further exacerbated by the relative decline of the United States, the United Kingdom, and to a lesser extent, the broader Western European international structures which have helped shape the post-war world.
Meanwhile, across the economic, political, and strategic front, it would seem many Australian policymakers, let alone Australians, would struggle to identify the BRICS members and the unrestricted period of economic warfare being waged against Australia and the rest of the US-led world order, with the Brazilian, Russian, Chinese and Indian-led organisation rapidly expanding its influence, economic clout, and direct attacks on the US dollar-backed global economic system.
The importance of this epoch-defining shift in global economic, political, and strategic power is best explained by Günther Maihold, deputy director of the German Institute for International and Security Affairs, or SWP, who explained: “The founding myth of the emerging economies has faded. The BRICS countries are experiencing their geopolitical moment.”
This latest reality comes as BRICS confirms it has received applications from another 25 nations seeking to join the economic, political, and increasingly strategic bloc, including Thailand, Indonesia, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Pakistan, and Turkey, as the bloc continues to ramp up its attacks on the US dollar.
Yet, as far as the Biden administration is concerned, it’s business as usual, with it seemingly more focused on playing gotcha politics with the latest hot button social issue in domestic politics rather than serving as the Leader of the Free World.
These realities are further compounded by the economic and political hangovers left over by the COVID-19 pandemic, particularly the unrestricted quantitative easing policies implemented by nations across the globe, exacerbating supply chain-driven inflation and the shift away from the phenomenon of globalisation and free trade.
In light of these mounting challenges, it is becoming increasingly clear that both Australia’s policymakers and the Australian public need to mature their thinking and begin a long-required shift from passive actor towards an intentional actor on the global stage, but most importantly in the Indo-Pacific.
Final thoughts
Only by recognising the relative decline of the United States (not a popular opinion to state out loud) and accepting that the United States has limitations, can Australia truly begin to take stock of the challenges of operating in this increasingly multipolar world.
It is equally critical for us to understand that Australia’s security, prosperity, and stability will not be determined by events in Europe, nor will they be determined by circumstances in the Middle East, while they may influence circumstance, our national future will not be determined by these areas. Highlighting this point, Peter Jennings AO, speaking at the Defence Connect DSR Summit, explained, “It [the Defence Strategic Review] misreads the source of the risk, the source of the risk is China.”
Explaining further, Jennings said, “It misreads that we are just watching this (on the sidelines), but we are actually heavily invested in this [US-China] competition. I think that language is giving the government an opportunity not to talk about China ... These three paragraphs would have to have been the three most talked about in the review. I am pleased that the document has said what we all know to be true, but there is plenty of transparency about what China is doing. (It can be found) In Xi Jinping’s speeches and writing, government documents; strategy running counter to the current global order.”
“Australians aren’t silly and are, to a certain extent, ahead of our politicians at the moment,” Jennings explained to the audience.
Achieving this will also require the nation to establish a “strategic intent” for itself, to do so, we will need to ask ourselves what sort of nation do we wish to be, what do we want to be capable of and what is the objective reality of our nation we want others to see us as?
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
Stephen Kuper
Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.
