Continuity and change in Australian foreign and defence policy

Another uncertainty is the extent to which the US will remain engaged in Asian Pacific matters. With the return of China to the global scene, the US is no longer the sole undisputed superpower. It had a very short period of that status: from 1991 (with the end of the Cold War) to 2001 (the onset of the disastrous War on Terror).

Many Americans now feel they have spent too much blood and treasure in trying to solve the world's problems and getting little thanks for all their efforts. The longest continuous theme in US foreign policy is isolationism (going back to President George Washington) and many Americans now want to end what they see as excessive overseas military engagements.

A second issue are matters not previously regarded as "national security" ones, but which will have national security implications. Climate change now occupies much attention. It will also have national security implications, with armed forces being deployed to cope with it. For example, China has a large army but much of it will be deployed in dealing with such crises as floods and fires.

Another national security challenge comes from the declining populations in most countries outside Africa. By the end of this century, there will be more people in Africa than in China and India combined.

Many other countries will follow the Japanese example, namely a lot of older people but not many young ones. China may grow old before it grows rich (which may help explain President Xi's impatience over Taiwan: he is striking while he thinks he still has the opportunity to do so). WEIRD World countries have their own labour shortages, which may also affect recruitment to the armed services.

Finally, we need a more engaged Australian public discussing defence matters. We need to be more imaginative in how we communicate human rights issues.

There is the lesson here from the longest running radio series in world history: BBC's The Archers. During World War II the UK became self-sufficient in food and the post-war government decided that UK farmers should maintain that progress. It was necessary to educate them on the emerging ideas in agriculture. A formal radio programme (TV was not then in general use) would not be effective: few farmers would bother to tune in. The Archers, as a daily episode, provided a daily drama interspersed with conversations about agriculture. (The government is no longer influencing programme content). Could we get some attention to Australian foreign and defence policy via light entertainment?

Another example: Malcolm Gladwell, in examining how ideas can be spread, provides the illustration of Georgia Sadler (The Tipping Point: how little things can make a big difference). Sadler (now a professor at the University of California San Diego) was a nurse employed to educate women on health issues. Over two decades ago she realized that the women who came to her seminars were already aware of the issues. The challenge was to connect with the women who did not or could not attend.

Sadler realized that women have a more intimate relationship with their hairdresser than with most other people. She decided to educate the hairdressers to educate their clients. She worked with trainers on how the hairdresser could educate their clients in a compelling manner.

To conclude, Australia – and the world – is moving into a more complicated and unsettled era. We need innovative ways of communicating a sense of urgency to the general public about the challenges of the new era.