Search

Recent debates about international security have overwhelmingly focussed on how the content of security needs to be widened to account for the location of security in non-military settings (Weaver et al, 1998; Paris, 2001; Newman, 2001; Dunne and Wheeler, 2004). Human security has frequently been the focal point of such “securitisation” debates. For many commentators, this involves a shift in the ‘referent object’ of security away from the state to individuals and, in so doing, challenges the centrality of deeply embedded “statist” conceptions of political violence. This paper seeks to add to this debate by offering a critique of the manner in which security is commonly operationalised by foreign policy actors within so called “middle powers” with particular emphasis being placed upon Australia and Sweden. The two countries have considerable economic and military clout and their self identities are those of “good international citizens” (GIC) or so called “forces for good”. However, as the paper will demonstrate, their conceptions of what this means in the security field vary a great deal. A key argument developed here is that Middle powers should not be regarded as inherently benign forces for good, but as actors which both enable and disable certain normative agendas within the international security structure. Paying attention to the gendering of security policy within these states allows for a critical evaluation of the way in which “soft security” functions as a highly strategic narrative of foreign policy actors. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Trilateral security cooperation among Japan, Australia and the United States has accelerated over the last few years, with the first foreign ministerial meeting held in early 2006. Not unexpectedly, the new cooperation between Canberra, Tokyo, and Washington is often characterized as a revival of Containment (against China, this time) or a mini-NATO in Asia. The paper will examine this latest development in East Asia’s security relations, with a specific focus on Japanese policymaking. The concept of a democratic state as one form of state identity will be given particular attention for understanding Tokyo’s attitude toward trilateral security cooperation, as well as the new security order in Asia. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper, part of a broader research project, is concerned with the question of how military intervention as part of the 'war on terror' was justified in the three core members of the 'Coalition of the Willing': the US, UK and Australia. In particular, we focus on the ways in which interventions in Iraq were justified to domestic audiences across these states. Building on critical constructivist understandings of security, we suggest the importance of conceiving of security discourse and policy as an intersubjective realm. Within this realm, the ability to legitimise or enable particular foreign and security practices is related to the extent to which these practices are located within dominant narratives of history, culture and identity within the political communities concerned. While political leaders in these three states therefore defined the need for intervention in broadly similar terms, subtle differences in emphasis and argumentation are potentially important not only in communicating how the military interventions themselves are made possible in different contexts, but also in illuminating the possibilities and constraints for discourses and practices of security in global politics. ..PAT.-Unpublished Manuscript [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper will provide background for the other four papers on the panel. It will examine the recent history of US-Austrlian defense cooperation, with particular emphasis on three areas:- Grand Strategy: Do Washington and Canberra share a common grand strategy regarding the use of military force in an age of terrorism?- Military Operations: How successful have US and Australian forces been at working together in coalition operations?- Defense capabilities: What is the current state of (and future prospects for) defense capabilities in these two countries? Do the trends predict to increased cooperation or divergence? ..PAT.-Conference Proceeding [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the impact of the policy of pre-emptive self-defense of Australia on its relations with its neighboring countries. It argues that the alliance between the U.S. and Australia has the potential to destabilize the relations of the latter with its Southeast Asian neighbors. It tackles the shift from multilateralism to alliance with the U.S. by the government of prime minister John Winston Howard in 1996. It cites that the alliance provides the U.S. with enhance military stability in the Asia Pacific region.