Barack Obama and Xi Jinping will meet in California this Friday and Saturday. The extended and comparatively informal meeting has the potential to shape the relationship of the two leaders, and of their countries. It has been called a ‘chance to recast the century’s most important bilateral relationship’, and the ‘last, best chance’ to lay the foundations for peace in Asia in the coming decades. Cyber security (see this week’s new report from ASPI on China’s cyber capabilities) and North Korea (a view on that subject here from Ross Terrill) are also likely to be on the agenda.

Despite the concerns of Asia and the ‘rebalance’, the Obama administration has old problems too (from CSIS):

The United States cannot afford to blunder its way into staying in Afghanistan, or to blunder its way out by making the wrong decisions about whether and how to stay.

Also on the Middle East, this week France and Britain released statements confirming their view that chemical weapons have been used in Syria. Laurent Fabius, the French foreign minister, said that ‘there is no doubt that it was the regime and its accomplices’ had used sarin gas. Obama’s response continues to be cautious. Read more

Michael O’Hanlon from Brookings has some ideas on how the US might spend its defence dollars given current fiscal constraints in his book Healing the Wounded Giant, including cutting ground forces, buying half of the planned 2,500 F-35s, and suggesting the Navy can get by with as low as 260 ships, rather than the planned 286. O’Hanlon and David Petraeus have an op-ed along the same lines as well.

On a related topic, here is an article on how to keep the US–China relationship from running off the rails.

In Japan, Prime Minister Abe is having some success the second time around:

Mr Abe’s dramatic rata-tat-tat of policy shifts has excited and enthused [the Japanese people]. His approval ratings, like the stockmarket, are booming.

His plans also appear to involve the first ever amendments to the 1947 constitution, including acknowledging Japan’s right to standing army, navy, and air force.

On the other side of the Indo-Pacific, the Lowy Institute has released its 2013 India poll. It tells us, among other things, that apparently 83% of Indians consider China a threat, and we in Australia are India’s fourth favourite country, behind the US, Singapore, and Japan.

And earlier this month the International Crisis Group has released a report on stability in Timor-Leste:

Timor-Leste deserves praise for the success with which it has implemented pragmatic policies designed to bring rapid stability following the 2006 crisis. Promoting confidence at home and abroad is important for transforming any post-conflict economy. But it likely has a very limited window of opportunity during which to make investments – both political and financial – that might mitigate the still real risks of an eventual return to conflict.

We have also had a couple of short responses from our readers:

Neil James notes in response to this piece on basing at the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, that as well as there being limited space, limitations in the supply of fresh water and the lack of a deep-water harbour to accommodate larger ships will also preclude the establishment of large or permanent bases.

And in response to Peter Jennings thoughts on pay parking for the ADF (and others in the Parliamentary Triangle), a bemused member of the ADF notes that: we should “Spare a thought for some in JOC that drive 140km round trips to Bungendore each day… Did you know DFAT are offering a fuel allowance to their people to actually get someone to volunteer to work out there?”

And last but not least, we also suggest you check out our jobs page. There are three positions going at the moment; a cyber security analyst, events and publications assistant, and an administration officer.

Image courtesy of Flickr user U.S. Pacific Fleet.

You can do a lot with a coral atoll. The US uses the leased UK territory of Diego Garcia ‘To provide forward support to operational forces forward deployed to the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf…’. That includes logistical support for naval and air forces, and makes Washington’s job of projecting power into the Indian Ocean and Persian Gulf regions far simpler one than it otherwise would be.

View Larger Map

The new Defence White Paper confirms the implementation of the ADF Posture Review recommendations to make military use of the Cocos (Keeling) Islands, which lie about 1100 km from Indonesia, and 2100 km from Australia’s North West Cape.

The government will be…

…expanding the capacity of infrastructure to meet Navy’s future basing requirements; and upgrading airbases to better support aircraft operations, including for P-8A maritime surveillance operations from Cocos (Keeling) Islands.

Of course the Cocos are smaller than Diego Garcia. There isn’t the space to provide the same level of logistic support, so we probably won’t see major and permanent bases there. Nevertheless, the position of the atoll will make it a useful operational asset as the Indian Ocean and South East Asian sea lanes take on greater significance.

Andrew Davies is a senior analyst for defence capability at ASPI and executive editor of The Strategist. Harry White is an analyst at ASPI.

There has been a lot said on the Boston Bombings. ASPI’s Toby Feakin on what we know and don’t know:

Nuclear-powered aircraft carriers and their embarked air wings enable the United States to act as a key guarantor of peace and stability around the world. Having the ability to operate without a “permission slip” for basing and over-flight access, while generating the range of effects necessary to deter potential adversaries, is more than just a symbol of power. It is the essence of power.

Things in Asia could be worse according to this article from Foreign Policy:

But that doesn’t mean there’s nothing  to worry about, according to the interestingly titled China’s Forbearance Has Limits (PDF) from the National Defence University in Washington DC.

If you are in Canberra, Professor Russell Trood will be speaking on Australia’s campaign to win a seat on the United Nations security council today at 5.30 pm (AIIA Conference Centre, Stephen House, on Thesiger Court in Deakin) .

Finally, rumor is rife in Canberra that we will see a new Defence White Paper released in the next few days. ASPI’s Peter Jennings writes that “Sadly, it looks as though the 2013 defence white paper has been “fitted for but not with” money.” If the rumors are true, then look out for in depth analysis here on The Strategist.

China released a new Defence White Paper. Lots of commentary on that, including from the BBC, NYT, and The Australian. In particular it seems that China didn’t include a no-first-use statement about its nuclear arsenal.

Former Australian ambassador Garry Woodard has reconstructed (PDF) what he calls  ‘…the previously unknown, and remarkably casual process by which the Menzies government committed Australian troops to Vietnam.’ He then goes on to argue that the ‘processes by which Australian governments have taken the decision to go to war, from Korea in 1950 to Vietnam to Iraq in 2003, do not stand up to scrutiny.’

Ross Terrill, a doyen of China studies and visiting fellow at ASPI, is giving a lecture at the ANU China Institute at 5pm on Friday, 26 April on Mao, the CCP, and American China-policy: an overview from Yanan years till now.

The Boston bombings this week have generated more speculation than information. But here we have an example from the New Yorker of the results of fear-mongering, and similarly, this piece from the BBC.

There’s a lot out there on the Korean situation, but here is a sensible one on why, though not utterly improbable, war on the Korean Peninsula is highly unlikely. Also on The Diplomat, is this piece about the provocative move by Japan to grant fishing rights to Taiwan around the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands, which are the subject of a dispute between Japan and China.

CSIS has a report (PDF) to provide a taster on the complexities of the geostrategic implications of unconventional oil and natural gas—a good thing in a week where Woodside Petroleum cancelled a USD$45 billion liquefied natural gas project in Western Australia.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia Commons.

Mark’s explanation of what is complex terrain is pithy. Asia has two free trade agreements, one championed by the US at the expense of China (TPP), and one via ASEAN which includes China but not the US (RCEP). He writes that whatever the sense of competition between them, neither will do structural harm to the economic interests of the other. So, we should be intolerant of any attempt at a veto of the respective agreements—no state should be allowed to inhibit the trade liberalisation of another.

But I think that while the intended consequence of the TPP is economic, its primary effect is political. Any ‘veto’ which would be exercised by China may have trade casualties, but it would have a political target. This is an area of politics which will directly affect China’s capacity to pursue core interests of all sorts—because the TPP looks very much like a containment mechanism, particularly now Japan is a part.

If the TPP is seen by China as a containment mechanism, then the partnership’s negative impact on stability in Asia will outweigh the economic benefits we could expect to see. After all, the TPP may help economically, but it is hardly a structural change. And Asia’s economic success is built mainly on several decades of stability—continued stability will be more important for growth than the liberalisation generated through the TPP. Read more

First up Captain Henry J. Hendrix argues in this paper from CNAS that aircraft carriers may be too vulnerable to play the central role in future conflicts that they have played in the past.

We also have George Perkovich’s worthy effort on the difficult subject of trying to develop a more defensible nuclear doctrine for the US.

Speaking of all things nuclear, the Pentagon has said they are ‘moderately confident’ that North Korea has figured out how to make a nuclear weapon small enough to be delivered by ballistic missile.

Speculating on the whole Asian Century thing from Canada’s perspective, Fen Osler Hampsonand Derek H. Burney write that:

Just as Canada was a key contributor to the security of Europe through NATO and the negotiation of key confidence-building instruments like the CSCE, we have a similar role to play in the evolving security and defense architecture of the Asia-Pacific.

And a translation of an article (PDF) written by the PRC’s Lt. Gen Qi Jianguo, Dep. Chief of General Staff—including responsibility for foreign relations and intelligence.  An interesting read:

At present, the focus of global competition has shifted to the Asia-Pacific. The United States has proposed an eastward shift in its strategic focus, Japan is actively accompanying the U.S. “rebalance to the Asia-Pacific,” … and Australia is seeking a deeper level of “integration into the Asia-Pacific.”

Lastly, If you are in Canberra on the 23 April, Emeritus Professor Paul Dibb is giving a talk on the risks of war between the US and China – including potential flash points and what this all means for Australia.

Image courtesy of AWM.

There’s been a lot of reflection on Australian blogs and news sites about our role in the Iraq war, so for a change, here’s a piece that examines Iraq’s future political prospects and another that ponders whether Iran was the real victor of the war.

Following on from last week’s visit by Myanmar President Thein Sein to Canberra, Sean Turnell’s latest East Asia Forum post examines two economic reforms that are illustrative of challenges ahead for foreign investment.

Next week we’ll be featuring a post on the complex issues raised by autonomous drones. Here’s a New York Times piece that draws on similar themes including the ethics involved in killing and autonomy.

There’s a fascinating blog post on the barriers to professional military blogging. Cross-posted to CIMSEC, it asks, why is it so difficult to attract Gen-Y thinkers to post about naval warfighting? Here’s a snippet:

The perceived risks and rewards of sharing ideas online have never been greater in an era where the center of gravity in naval warfighting thinking has shifted from the dusty Naval War College Review lying unread on the shelf in the empty wardroom, to the simulator and the blogosphere.

Events

Canberra: What is ‘Abenomics’ and will it help Japan’s ailing economy? ANU is hosting a public lecture by Professor Takatoshi Ito on Tuesday 2 April at 5.30pm, JG Crawford Building.

Melbourne: If you’re interested in the economic relationship between Australia and China, Mr Colin Heseltine, a former Australian diplomat, will talk about strengthening business ties, hosted by AIIA Victoria Thursday 4 April at 6pm, Dyason House.

Is China at a turning point? Hosted by the Asia Institute and the University of Melbourne’s Centre for Contemporary Chinese Studies, Professor Christine Wong, Mr Murray McLean and Professor Ross Garnaut will discuss China’s trajectory on Monday 8 April at 5.30pm, Sidney Myer Asia Centre.

Sydney: the Lowy Institute will be hosting former Prime Minister John Howard who will deliver an address on the tenth anniversary of the Iraq war on Tuesday 9 April, details here.

As the military modernisation the Asia Pacific continues, Taiwan is now looking at whether it can build its own submarine fleet.

If you’ve seen the movie Argo—the Hollywood version of the rescue of six US diplomats by the CIA and Canadian government—here’s the memoirs of CIA agent Tony Mendez (Ben Affleck’s character) (PDF) on how things really went down.

In the 21st century security corner for this week: An update on the PLA’s UAV program (PDF) from Project 2049, Study on Chinese UAVs, and CSIS’ Peter Singer looks at the growth in capabilities like drones and cyber, and says that Obama needs to take a greater role in articulating norms for their use.

From CSIS we have a report on the nuclear aspect of Sino-US relations. The dynamic, they say, is stable for the moment, but the US will need to accept a Chinese minimum deterrent to keep it that way.

To mark a decade since the Iraq War, Foreign Policy have published a photoessay that looks at an operations journal of a young American lieutenant. The photos and entries depict his perspective of a post-9/11 America and his deployment in Iraq (warning: it’s grittier than most links we suggest).

Events

Canberra: ASPI’s Andrew Davies and Ben Schreer will provide their thoughts on the 2013 Defence White Paper, hosted by RUSI tomorrow, Wednesday 20 March at 5pm at the R1 Theatrette at Defence’s Russell Offices.

Former DFAT Secretary, Mr Ric Smith AO PSM, will be speaking about Australia in a world of change, covering the global shifts in power, the Indian Ocean and other foreign policy issues. Hosted at AIIA ACT’s branch in Deakin, the event is on Monday 25 March at 5.30pm.

Sydney: Executive Director of Human Rights Watch, Kenneth Roth, will deliver a presentation on United Nations Security Council challenges for Australia at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, 22 March at 12.30pm.

Brisbane: Lieutenant Colonel Peter Monks (currently serving in the Australian Army) will address security challenges facing Afghanistan and future challenges for the Australian Army and ADF on Tuesday 26 March at 6pm.

Image courtesy of Flickr user The US Army.

Today’s a public holiday in Canberra so we’re taking a short break from regular blogging, but here’s our weekly round-up of news, reports and events in the defence, NatSec and strategy world.

First up, Dewi Fortuna Anwar’s NBR essay provides an Indonesian perspective on the US rebalance toward Asia. Take note of her concerns about the military dimension of the rebalance and Papua, and how Indonesia is hedging between the US and China.

How will sequestration affect the US Marine Corps? Marines Chief General James Amos says it’ll ‘cut into bone’. Troops deploying to Afghanistan will have the required resources, but with Marines deployed to Darwin, we’ll have to see what budget cuts mean for the rebalance efforts here.

Sticking with US defence budget cuts, the US Navy plans to ground four air wings and cancel eight ship deployments to help save the service USD$10 billion. Read more

Welcome back for our weekly round-up of news, reports and events in the defence, NatSec and strategy world.

It’s one minute past midnight, as the sequester—USD$1.2 trillion of cuts across the US federal budget over the next decade, including defence—has gone into effect. Expect more bickering to follow, writes The Economist.

For readers interested in strategy, Adam Elkus has a short and sweet review of a new edited volume by John Andreas Olsen and Colin Gray called The Practice of Strategy: from Alexander the Great to the present which asks the fundamental question, is there unity to all strategic experience?

There’s cautious optimism from Trita Parsi in this piece on recent negotiations over Iran’s nuclear program; the meeting in Almaty saw the paradigm of the talks shift from perpetual escalation to an exchange of concessions and incentives.

On a related note, why eliminate nuclear weapons? James E. Doyle has a new Survival article available free for download here. Read more

In last Wednesday’s Autumn Statement, the UK’s Chancellor George Osborne has clung, all white knuckles, to austerity with a commitment that would make Calvin proud. But as Osborne tries to sell painful belt-tightening to the British people, across Whitehall the Ministry of Defence is making at least one large spend which seems hard to justify—the new Queen Elizabeth class carriers.

Britain’s Carrier Strike capability (the carriers, and the planes to operate from them) will be expensive. The estimate released before April’s decision to revert to the Short Take-Off Vertical Landing version of the Joint Strike Fighter was at least £6.2 billion (AUD$9.5 billion). At more than 65,000 tonnes—almost three times the displacement of the Illustrious class they’ll replace and the largest ships the Royal Navy has ever operated—these are formidable pieces of hardware. As such, they will be symbols of national pride for a country that has naval traditions deeply embedded in its psyche. The problem is that they are unlikely to deliver a strategic benefit that justifies the price tag, no matter how impressive they look. (A fact that hasn’t gone unnoticed by Britain’s comedians.)

Like any element of force structure, the strategic value of the carriers rests on the situations in which they could be usefully deployed. And that’s the problem—it’s hard to find many of those. Carrier deployment would only be the right option for the UK in situations which get a tick next to each of the following criteria: Read more