Australia

How NATO's Global Partners 'Got a Seat at the NAC table'

Jorge Benitez — Tue, 31 Jan 2012 10:23:16 -0600

From Colin Clark, AOLDefense: The deputy assistant secretary general [James Appathurai] also highlighted a little known change in policy that was driven by Australia and New Zealand. In return for joining NATO operations in Afghanistan, both countries were granted a seat the council's table regarding Afghan operations for as long as they fight alongside NATO troops. They have the right to be consulted and file objections, as well as agree to NAC decisions regarding Afghanistan. And the policy was cemented by the Libyan operations.

"As soon as countries became true contributors they got a seat at the NAC table," Appathurai told our group of American defense writers. The North Atlantic Council is, in most cases, NATO's supreme policy making body. Australia and New Zealand established the precedent that they would exercise the same powers of decision-making as the regular members of the council possess on matters concerning Afghanistan. During the Libyan operations, countries such as Qatar, were granted the same status on the NAC for the duration of NATO's involvement there. Qatar supplied several hundred troops to the Libyan rebels to train them and help them develop effective command and control. Qatar already had partner status with NATO as a result of the Istanbul Cooperation Initiative, designed to offer Middle Eastern countries "practical bilateral security cooperation" with the alliance. (photo: NATO)

Australia deepens engagement with NATO, appoints first Ambassador to the alliance

Jorge Benitez — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 10:08:32 -0600

From the Foreign Ministry of Australia: Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd today announced that Dr Brendan Nelson will be Australia's first Ambassador to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

Dr Nelson is currently Australia's Ambassador to Belgium, Luxembourg and the European Union, and the Australian Government's representative to NATO, which is based in Brussels. Dr Nelson's appointment as Ambassador represents a deepening of Australia's engagement with NATO.

NATO is an alliance of 28 countries from North America and Europe committed to protecting the security of member countries. It also provides a forum for members to consult on security issues of common concern and consider joint actions in addressing them. NATO-led forces are currently helping to bring stability to Afghanistan, and led the international effort to protect civilians in Libya. NATO plays a key role in global efforts to combat terrorism and ensure cyber security.

In Afghanistan, Australia is the largest non-NATO contributor to the International Security Assistance Force and the 10th largest contributor overall. Australia is firmly committed to completing its role of supporting transition in Uruzgan Province. NATO will retain a leadership role in the international community's engagement on Afghanistan after the conclusion of the current ISAF mission in 2014.

Dr Nelson served in the Australian Parliament as the Member for Bradfield from March 1996, and was the Leader of the Parliamentary Liberal Party from November 2007 until September 2008. He served as Minister for Defence, Minister for Education, Science and Training, and Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for Defence.

A general practitioner by training and a graduate of Flinders University in South Australia, Dr Nelson was President of the Australian Medical Association from 1993 to 1995.

From NATO: Australian Foreign Minister addresses the North Atlantic Council

The Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd visited NATO Headquarters on 20 January, met with Deputy Secretary General Ambassador Claudio Bisogniero and addressed the North Atlantic Council for an exchange of views on the new strategic enviroment. He also discussed with Allies how to further deepen the partnership between the Alliance and Australia.

“The partnership between Australia and the Alliance is based on our shared principles, values, and a common vision of how international relations can promote peace and stability”, the Deputy Secretary General said. “Not surprising, it has developed into Australia becoming one of NATO’s foremost partners across the globe. There has been a constant upgrade in our political consultations and practical cooperation.”

Allies thanked Foreign Minister Rudd for Australia’s sustained commitment to the Alliance’s ISAF operation in Afghanistan as the largest non-NATO troop contributor. (photo: Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Australia Policy Shift Signals India’s Key Role

Ronak Desai — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 14:20:36 -0600

Australia ended its decades' old ban on exporting uranium to India, opening the world's largest uranium reserves to New Delhi’s lucrative nuclear market. While the sudden policy shift has been framed as one aimed at improving bilateral ties , it is part of a larger strategic realignment in the Asia-Pacific region being led by the United States.

Initially announced by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, the decision secured approval from the ruling Labor Party in early December. Australia had originally imposed the ban against India in response to New Delhi’s longstanding refusal to sign the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).

Gillard cited a host of reasons for the policy reversal, including the need to strengthen and expand relations with New Delhi as well as the desire to spur domestic economic growth by creating new markets for uranium exports. She further acknowledged the “change in diplomatic circumstances around the world” surrounding India’s nuclear program, referring to the passage of the landmark US-India Civilian Nuclear Agreement in 2008. The wide-ranging deal between Washington and New Delhi effectively granted India de-facto international recognition of its nuclear program and lifted the 46-nation Nuclear Suppliers Group’s (NSG) ban on supplying uranium to the world’s largest democracy. Overturning the ban finally brought Australia in line with those countries already selling uranium to India, eager to help the South Asian giant satisfy its fast growing energy demand.

While each one of these factors certainly influenced Canberra’s decision-making calculus, the reversal can only be properly understood within the context of the Washington’s recent foreign policy “pivot” towards Asia. With a wary eye focused on China, the Obama Administration has embarked on a strategic “refocusing and rebalancing” of its priorities in the Asia-Pacific, reaffirming its steadfast commitment to security and stability in region. A critical component of this realignment features Washington strengthening its network of partnerships and alliances in the Indo-Pacific, a central aim behind Obama’s ten-day tour there in December.

Canberra’s seemingly sudden policy turnaround in reality came after months of talks with officials in Washington who viewed the ban as not only a major barrier to the ability to pursue deeper ties with India and Australia, but also an unnecessary irritant to the larger American strategic vision in the region. Revealingly, Gillard’s announcement came on the eve of Obama’s state visit to Australia where he revealed that the United States would deploy 2,500 marines to the island continent to strengthen alliances in the region. Despite denials by both Washington and Canberra, the two announcements are unmistakably linked.

That the United States exercised considerable influence over Australia to overturn the ban demonstrates that India is likely to feature prominently in Washington’s strategic plans in the region. As the natural and only viable regional counterweight to China, it is unsurprising that India will play a crucial role in anchoring US strategy — even if New Delhi is unlikely take part in any formal security pact that could prompt Chinese fears of possible encirclement. Washington’s tacit role in lifting the ban constitutes a powerful reminder that it remains committed to full implementation of the US-India nuclear deal, belying assertions by observers to the contrary.

Ronak D. Desai practices law in Washington, DC and holds a joint law and public policy degree from Harvard Law School and Harvard’s John F. Kennedy School of Government. Photo Credit: Reuters Pictures.

US ranked 13th in security of nuclear material

Jorge Benitez — Thu, 12 Jan 2012 11:00:15 -0600

From William J. Broad, the New York Times: The 32 nations with materials that can fuel atom bombs are typically mum on security, which looks to the public like a closed world of barbed wire and armed guards. Behind the scenes, atomic insiders have long told horror stories of risky practices and security flaws that might let the crucial ingredients for nuclear weapons fall into the wrong hands.

Now, for the first time publicly, experts have surveyed the precautions each country has in place and ranked the nations from best to worst. The study is full of surprises and potential embarrassments: for instance, Australia takes first place in nuclear security and Japan comes in at No. 23, behind nations like Kazakhstan and South Africa.

The United States? It ties for 13th place with Belgium. Last place goes to North Korea, a police state that the report finds to be seriously deficient on issues of atomic security, and next-to-last to Pakistan.

The edgy ranking is a joint endeavor of the Nuclear Threat Initiative, a private advocacy group in Washington, and the Economist Intelligence Unit, a company in London that does risk analyses. Their goals are to stir debate on how to promote security and to encourage governments to strengthen protections against atomic terrorism.

“We’ll never get this job done if we continue to operate behind closed doors,” Deepti Choubey, senior director for nuclear security at the Nuclear Threat Initiative, said Tuesday in an interview. The analysis was unveiled Wednesday morning and posted online at www.ntiindex.org.

In interviews, the nuclear analysts said they worked from public information that was often poorly known — for instance, general procedures for training guards and protecting sensitive sites.

“There was no spying,” said Leo Abruzzese, director of global forecasting at the Economist Intelligence Unit. “It was pieced together” from a wealth of obscure data. . . .

The new analysis centers on security precautions for the two main fuels of nuclear arms — plutonium and highly enriched uranium. It did not try to assess protections for highly radioactive materials that a terrorist might try to scatter with conventional explosives in a so-called dirty bomb. . . .

Among the nine countries known to possess nuclear arms, Britain came out on top with a score of 79. The report credits its high status to concrete security measures as well as “its commitment to and follow-through on international obligations. . . .”

The report said nearly a quarter of the nations with materials that can fuel atom bombs scored poorly on social factors because of “very high levels of corruption.” And it warned that several of those “also scored poorly on the prospect of political instability over the next two years.”

That bleak combination, the study concluded, “significantly increases the risk that nuclear materials might be stolen, with help from corrupt insiders or in the midst of government distraction or political chaos.” (Photo: Reuters)

Georgia soon to surpass Australia as largest non-NATO troop contributor in Afghanistan

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 21 Dec 2011 11:45:21 -0600

From Civil Georgia: The Parliament approved on Tuesday President Saakashvili’s request to send one additional infantry battalion to Afghanistan on top of 936 Georgian soldiers who already serve as part of the NATO-led International Security Assistance Force (ISAF).

As a result, after sending one more battalion – that is 749 soldiers – Georgia will become the largest non-NATO contributor to ISAF with total of 1,685 troops. Currently Australia is the largest non-NATO contributor to the Afghan operation with 1,550 soldiers on the ground.

Georgia, whose troops operate without caveats, has lost total of ten soldiers in Afghanistan – all in the Helmand province. (photo: ISAF)

The power of the anglosphere

Jorge Benitez — Tue, 20 Dec 2011 14:47:23 -0600

From Neil Reynolds, the Globe and Mail: Now, in The New World Order, a study published in November by the London-based Legatum Institute, [American geographer Joel] Kotkin and nine academic associates conclude that the anglosphere will remain the ascendant player on the world stage for a long time to come. . . .

The anglosphere accounts for 26.1 per cent of global GDP ($19-trillion U.S.) – the same share the British Empire held at its height. The sinosphere accounts for 15.1 per cent ($11-trillion); the indosphere 5.4 per cent ($4-trillion). On a per-capita basis, the anglosphere leads by lopsided margins: the anglosphere, $45,000 per person; the sinosphere, $7,500 per person; the indosphere, $4,000 per person.

“Today, the anglosphere is predominantly a union of language, culture and shared values,” Mr. Kotkin says, with a population of 400 million. Beyond the anglosphere itself, two billion other people live in countries with a strong English-language bias: the countries of the Commonwealth, for example, and Singapore – which, its Chinese population notwithstanding, is a country where English is dominant.

“Since the Second World War, English has replaced French, Russian and German as the primary language of business and science,” Mr. Kotkin notes. English is now spoken by 40 per cent of Europeans, French by just 20 per cent.

Further, the ascendancy of English in Asia, Mr. Kotkin says, “all but cements its status as the world’s ‘world language.’ ” The number of Chinese who speak English will soon outnumber the English-speaking population of the anglosphere itself. . . .

Of the top 500 software companies in the world, 450 are based in the anglosphere.

Equally important, Mr. Kotkin says, is the unique capacity of the anglosphere to attract immigrants – and its ability to “incorporate” cultures. In the past 10 years alone, 14 million people have emigrated to the anglosphere, among them 27 per cent of the 20,000 Chinese entrepreneurs whose incomes exceed $15-million a year. (graphic: britainandamerica.com) (via Real Clear World)

Australia's PM considering early withdrawal of troops from Afghanistan

Jorge Benitez — Mon, 21 Nov 2011 10:25:08 -0600

From Rod McGuirk, the AP: Prime Minister Julia Gillard said Monday that the Australian military training mission in Afghanistan could be completed before the 2014 target date, after an Afghan army commander told a newspaper that Australian troops should be withdrawn immediately.

Gillard's speech to Parliament raises the possibility that the Australian troop withdrawal could begin within the next three years.

Gillard said her government had no timetable for the Australian military's primary objective of training an Afghan National Army brigade to take responsibility for security in Uruzgan province.

"But given the progress we now see, it may well be complete before the end of 2014," she said. (photo: Getty)

Obama says Europe's problem is lack of political will

Jorge Benitez — Wed, 16 Nov 2011 15:52:09 -0600

From Laura MacInnis, Reuters: President Barack Obama said on Wednesday he was deeply concerned about the continued euro zone crisis, blaming it on a lack of political will, and that market turmoil would continue until Europe has a concrete plan to deal with its debt woes.

Obama praised French President Nicolas Sarkozy and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, along with Greece and Italy and their moves to form unity governments to implement reforms, but he was critical of wider Europe.

"The problem right now is a problem of political will. It is not a technical problem," Obama told a joint news conference with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard in Canberra.

"I think there is a genuine desire on the part of leaders like President Sarkozy and Chancellor Merkel, but they've got a complicated political structure," said Obama.

"We saw some progress with Italy and Greece putting forward unity governments that can implement some significant reforms. But at this point the larger Europe community has to stand behind the European project."

Obama's comments, some of the bluntest to date, added to a chorus of non-European policymakers urging greater action to deal with the 2-year-old crisis, and came as equity markets fell in response to a sell-off in euro zone bond markets.

"Until we put in place a concrete plan and structure that sends a clear signal to the markets that Europe is standing behind the euro and will do what it takes, we are going to continue to see the kinds of market turmoil we saw," said Obama. (photo: Getty)