Search

Australia's new government is committed to delivering the next defence white paper in 2015. The two previous white papers took a predominantly risk-management approach to Southeast Asia, generally ignored the strategic opportunities in the region, treated it as a stand-alone region largely unrelated to developments in East Asia and failed to link Australia's policies in Southeast Asia with the broader goal of helping to ensure greater strategic stability in Asia by putting constraints on Chinese assertiveness and encouraging its peaceful rise. After offering a summary of recent Australian defence thinking on Southeast Asia, this paper outlines why managing China is the key variable when it comes to strategic stability in the region. It then examines how China's strategy and behaviour can be shaped and influenced by events and relationships in Southeast Asia, and offers some suggestions as to the role Australia can seek to play in Southeast Asia that relates to Canberra's China-focused objectives and strategic stability in Asia more broadly If that can be achieved in the 2015 defence white paper, Australia - which is often criticized for being preoccupied primarily with managing the relationship with its superpower ally the United States - will demonstrate to itself and Asia that its heavy reliance on the ANZUS treaty is no barrier to strategic creativity in Asia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Securitization of the critical infrastructure as an important factor of national security has been among the aspects of wider changes in the security discourse since the end of the Cold War. The concept of critical infrastructure protection, initially focused on countering the terrorism threat, has been changing and expanding, from adopting the ‘all-hazard approach’, until the recent prevalence of the strategy of resilience in managing strategic security and operational risks. The sources of those risks are found mainly in climate-change induced natural hazards, as well as in global challenges of interconnection and interdependencies of critical infrastructure. The paper discusses the concepts of resilience and critical infrastructure, and then analyses the approaches to critical infrastructure protection and resilience in the United States, the United Kingdom and Australia. Analyzed are the official documents – strategies, laws and by-laws, reviews and guidelines produced by the governmental bodies of the mentioned countries, with the aim of clarification of the concept, as well as the countryspecific variations in its operationalization. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Over the past decade, numerous countries around the world have developed and implemented national cybersecurity strategies. Yet very few of these strategies have been subject to evaluations. As a result, it is difficult to judge the performance of strategies, the programs that comprise them, and the cost-effectiveness of funds spent. Natural and quasi-natural experiments are a promising set of research methods for the evaluation of cybersecurity programs. This paper provides an overview of the methods usedfor natural or quasi-natural experiments, recounts past studies in other domains where the methods have been used effectively, and then identifies cybersecurity activities or programs for which these methods might be appliedfor future evaluations (e.g., computer emergency response teams in the EU, cybersecurity health checks in Australia, and data breach notification laws in the United States). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Until World War II, there were few Lithuanians in Australia. Their numbers were boosted when 10,000 Lithuanian refugees arrived in this country in the late 1940s and early 1950s. Many congregated in the larger cities and established the structures necessary for the preservation of their national identity. These structures included Lithuanian newspapers and books, weekend schools, choirs and folk-dancing groups, Lithuanian libraries, credit unions, etc. All these initiatives were aimed at preserving the Lithuanian heritage, the "lietuvybė", and were addressed at the Lithuanian-speaking newcomers. These former refugees were still passionately hoping for an early liberation of their homeland, especially in their early years in Australia. At the same time, prompt assimilation of the European immigrants was in the forefront of the Australian Government's policy. Most Lithuanians managed to meet the Government's requirement without losing their "lietuvybė" -- an interesting phenomenon that has been studied in its own right and needs further in-depth discussion. In spite of the significant input by 10,000 Lithuanian migrants, however, the Australian population at large knew very little, or nothing at all, about Lithuania and its people. The Australian Lithuanians, aided by their Baltic colleagues, belatedly realised that it was not enough to document the Lithuanian identity and heritage just in Lithuanian. All about the Lithuanians, and the other Balts, had to be made known to Australians, in English. As a short-term measure, new newspapers, bulletins, leaflets and media releases were produced in English, featuring the facts of the foreign rule in the Baltics. Books started appearing on similar topics. In Australia today, some of the Lithuanian heritage continues to be recorded and published, in English. However, this work is carried out piecemeal and under difficul conditions. There is only one English-language Lithuanian journal in Australasia and in the whole Southern Hemisphere (Lithuanian Papers). Over 30 English-language books published in Australia during the past 50 years describe Lithuania and its people. Some are devoted entirely to this topic. Others have merely a chapter or two on Lithuania. Whether lengthy or brief, a number of these volumes are of a high standard; but several others are erroneous and misleading. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article examines the changing nature of Australian-American relations in the aftermath of the Iraq imbroglio and China's rise. While many observers see differences in Australian and US approaches toward China as a reflection of different interests, it is the contention of this paper that these different Australian-US perspectives on China are, in fact, premised more on some highly skewed assumptions and fallacious beliefs, misconceptions and myths that have lately come to underlie Australia's China policy than on divergent Australian-US interests. This article looks at the proposition that China's rise has the potential to divide Australia and America but concludes that Beijing is unlikely to succeed in driving a wedge between Washington and Canberra. The shared values and shared strategic interests ensure broad support for the Australia-US alliance in Australia which has now expanded into a global partnership encompassing the transnational security issues as well as the traditional geopolitical issues of managing the rise of new powers. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]