Australian Defence Policy Debate - Literature review Example

Australian Defence Policy Debate Name Institutional Affiliation Instructor Date Introduction The Australian defence policy is the guiding principle in which the country armed forces are based on. The policy stated in the Australian armed forces which id the Australian defence system has over long time sparked debated in whether the policy is logical in terms of securing both the continent Australia as well a she international fields. The Australian policy is composed of four main principles which are more relevant to the continentalists but rather benefiting to the internationalists. The Australian defence policy is currently under critic by the continentalists as it is basing most of oasis operations in overseas countries, including the Middle East as well as in Africa (Freedman, 2006, pg. 37). This paper presents the detailed debate of the internationalists and the continentalists on the basis of the Australian defence policy. The Four Debatable Principles of the Australian Defence Policy. As Dibb (2006, pg 64) asserts, the Australian defence policy has over time sparked a lot of debated over its mandate to protect the people of Australia as well as the other neighbouring countries. There are principles which govern the Australian defence policy, which make it more functioning and executable to its defence organs, there are four of these principles. The first principle stated that Australian defence system should be self-reliant. Paragraph 3.35 of the current Australian defence white paper outlines the provisions under this principle, in that the Australian defence system should always be able to rely on its resources to in order to live per its mandate. The internationalists most frequent argue in contradiction to this principle in that it makes the Australian defence system look more of self-proclaiming with no support from and to the outside world (Phillips, 2013, pg. 15). They urges that the defence system should allow support on both military power as well as the useful resources from the overseas military advances countries so as for them to later offer their military support to the low insecure countries in the globe. According to Dobell (2013, pg 78), the highest task of the Australia defence force is to deter detect any armed attack on the Australia soil. The Australian defence policy is founded on the principle of self-reliance in deterring and defect any attack, in alliance context to the United States. The continentalists argue that the alliance of this principle with the United States is a clear and enough move by the Australian defence policy in going international and workbag with other nations. The internationalists in thief principle claim that the clue is less and should be vested in more countries and gain support and alliance with many more countries (Dobell, 2013, pg 78). They further argue in line with the international benefits, that brings more cooperating, trade, as well as the ability of one military base to gain help from the other incise of any attack. As the DOD (2007, pg 139) outlines, the second principle of the Australian defence policy limit the ability and nature of the Australian military resources and influence. This principle greatly discourages a lot of investment from the national federal government to the military power, especially to finding overseas operations. The main referencing to this is majorly on the central factor, ether the government is not allowed to take great extensions on terns of the security threats and that these actions and mandate is solemnly left to the Australian defence force, solemnly to avoid any backfires in military operations (DOD, 2007, pg 139). Baldino and Carr (2016, pg. 58) ascertain that Paragraph 3.2 states that the choices must be made so as to make a guidance if the finite resources as well as deal with the challenges facing the force. The continentalists are in huge support of this principle in that the country’s defence policy is well in line with the protecting of only the continent an making the continent secure, the internationalists in the other side spark the debate in basis if the international lands that need the Australian help (Baldino & Carr, 2016, pg. 58). They argue that the country’s defence system needs to incorporate international resource allocation, so as to support at least some defence operations in overseas countries, whose secretary would mean a lot to the safety of Australia. Beazley (2003, pg. 38) chronicles that the second principle in the defence policy sparks more debate on the defence policy among the internationalists and the continentalists. The principle has a related theme that the Australian strategic defence is unlikely to diminish. The paragraph 2.21 of the white paper outlines that the Australian relative strategic power will be challenged among the best in the Asian started, as well as trigger more potential, in building the growth of their economies while modernising the military powers (Beazley, 2003, pg. 38). The white paper where most of the Australian defence policy highlights this segment in that it lays down the most controversial component of among the different players in the Australian, continental and the wider international players. According to Cheeseman (2013, pg. 67), the third principle of the defence policy portrays the need of a strong preference for all the operations closer to the home soil as well as the distant operations. The internationalists base their argument on this principle. They claim that the principle well claims that the defence system and the defence organs should take with great effort the operations in the home country, as well an overseas. The group claim that the defence organ is only concerned with the home operations as well as the operations near the home soil, while ignoring carrying out and showing some seriousness in the operating involving longer overseas nations (Cheeseman, 2013, pg. 67). The continentalists in the base of the above principle state that the country’s defence policy is clear on its mandate, and on its operations networks, claiming that the overseas operations are only carries out when the defence organs have surplus resources or have no eminent operations at or near home. Cheeseman (2013, pg. 67) asserts that the white paper on defence policy paragraph 3.30 to 3.34 clearly strata the third principle in two tasks, the first task is to deter and prevent any armed attack on the Australian soil, and the second task if to deter and prevent ant armed attack that would spark any insecurity and instability of the south pacific and the Timor-Leste. The internationalists claim that this principle does not recognise ether international masses, but only the local region, hence claiming that the Australian defence system has little to no contribution to securing the international lands (Cheeseman, 2013, pg. 67). Dalby (2006, pg. 59) asserts that the fourth principle of the defence policy in Australia is tending to bring together the military issues of contingency, discretion, force extension and the warning time. Recalling the defence of the Australia the continentalists claim that it had credible contingencies in short term, and the major contingencies were credible only after the extension fi the warning time, an action which made the defence sector to widen more. The debate sparks when the internationalists supports the current policy especially the fourth principle of the Australian defence policy. They claim at least Australia has found the major ability to extent the periods of waiting as well as are able to force extension in the military power (Dalby, 2006, pg. 59). The continentalists claim the extension plans are too wide to cover the international arena when the local continental context still has more to be covered as well as to be delivered to by the local defence system. As Dibb (2006, pg. 62) chronicles, the white paper on the defence policy paragraph 5.13 highlights the essence of balancing the resources between the short term requirements of the defence system and the current requirements. This principle is the foundation to the force expansion in case the force strategic circumstances deteriorate. More of the continentalists argue on the basis of amazing Australia defence policy, ore open on this part (Dibb, 2006, pg. 62). They claim that the principle leaves more of the requirements to aid and help the internationalists in their bids to draw Australian military force to enter the overseas markets. Dobell (2014, pg. 96), asserts that the debate has been continues to bas the argument on the status of the Australian defence policy. The policy has an article engaging the defence structure to involving itself in the wars that are solemnly not involving the Australia soil. These sections of the Australian policy allows the engagement of the conflicts that the country’s military can involve itself in the exemplary forces that are in peoples wars distant from the Australian homeland. The continentalists claim that this is the worst defence policy the Australians can ever have, they claim that the policy should be revised to involve the military involving in wars that are related to their homeland (Dobell, 2014, pg. 96). The internationalists on other side claim that these actions of wars outside Australia are philanthropic actions of the Australia to help this effected by the wars and bring about peace. Conclusion. Australia has a great defence policy, delivered in four main principles. These principles tend to bring stability as well as mandate the foundations of the defence system in Australia, many scholars, both internationalists and continentalists tend to debate on the potentiality of the defence system while calling for reforms in the defence policy. Australia barely needs any forced defence policy structuring or optimisation for the essence of benefiting the few continentalists or internationalists. The parody of the Australian defence policy is based on paradigm, the recent structure allows for flexibility and the sustainability of the Australian defence policy. To put an end to the debated on these two groups of people the defence system can hold a consensus with both the internationalists and the continentalists to hold basic revoking of the set issues. References Baldino, D. and Carr, A. (2016), ‘Defense Diplomacy and the Australian Defense Force: Smokescreen or Strategy?’ Australian Journal of International Affairs 70(2), pp.139-58 Beazley, K. (2003), ‘Whither the San Francisco Alliance System?’ Australian Journal of International Affairs 57(2), pp.325-38 Cheeseman, G. (2013), the Search for Self-Reliance: Australian Defense since Vietnam (Melbourne: Longman Cheshire). Page 67 Dalby, S. (2006), ‘Continent Adrift? Dissident Security Discourse and the Australian Geopolitical Imagination’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 50(1), pp.59-75 Dibb, P. (2006), ‘Is Strategic Geography Relevant to Australia’s Defense Policy?’ Australian Journal of International Affairs 60(2), pp.247-62 Dobell, G. (2013). ‘The South Pacific*/Policy taboos, popular amnesia and policy failures’, speech, Menzies Research Centre, Parliament House, Canberra, 12 February, B/www.mrcltd.org.au/uploaded_documents/southpacificlecture.pdf_/. Page 78 Dobell, G. (2014), ‘The Alliance Echoes and Portents of Australia’s Longest War’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 68(4), pp.386-96 DOD (Department of Defence), (2007). ‘The defence of Australia’ (Canberra: Australian Government Publishing Service). Page 139 Freedman, L. (2006). The transformation of strategic affairs, Adelphi Paper 379 (London: International Institute for Strategic Studies). Page 37 Phillips, A. (2013), ‘Australia and the Challenges of Order-Building in the Indian Ocean Region’, Australian Journal of International Affairs 67(2), pp.125-40 Read More