Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
Public Education
About Public Education
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      Public EducationAbout Public Education
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      News ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio Channel
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS
Connect
Search
  • RSIS
  • Publication
  • RSIS Publications
  • CO09094 | Australia’s Security Challenges: Lessons for Others?
  • Annual Reviews
  • Books
  • Bulletins and Newsletters
  • RSIS Commentary Series
  • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
  • Commemorative / Event Reports
  • Future Issues
  • IDSS Papers
  • Interreligious Relations
  • Monographs
  • NTS Insight
  • Policy Reports
  • Working Papers

CO09094 | Australia’s Security Challenges: Lessons for Others?
Nick Floyd

19 September 2009

download pdf

Commentary

As nations navigate a challenging world, Australian Defence Force (ADF) experiences on operations overseas and in major natural disasters have produced lessons that can be adapted and exported to other security stakeholders.

EVERYDAY IT seems that we are reminded of how many different challenges there are to national security. Now, as Canberra begins to consider the successor policy document to its 2008 National Security Statement, it is timely to ask how nations such as Australia can ensure that all the organisations and agencies that need to be involved are engaged, in the best ways possible – the so- called ‘whole-of-government’ approach.

Bombings in Jakarta and elsewhere, recent allegations of plots of terrorism in Australia, fears of pandemics like Swine flu, and climate change effects like ocean acidification, have all emerged at around the same time in recent years. They highlighted the need to both understand and prepare for the spectrum of national security challenges equally confronting Australia and its Asia-Pacific neighbours. These challenges come in all forms and sizes, from natural disasters, to failing states and intervention operations in far-off countries.

Responses are just as diverse. They may range from joint/combined missions involving police, defence, aid agency, and the diplomatic corps like those in the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste, to cooperation on people-smuggling and terrorism with Asia-Pacific partners like Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines.

National security policy responses

Tabled last year by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Australia’s first National Security Statement among other things set out a three part game-plan called ‘national security policy responses’. It comprises participation in an ‘activist diplomatic strategy’; delivering a versatile ADF ready to respond; and building a ‘national security community’ and capabilities that work together.

While this year’s Australian Defence White Paper reprised much of this guidance, the National Security Statement game-plan suggests Defence clearly has a wider part in all these responses. These encompass its operational missions both overseas and at home – such as helping in Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami, and the recent bushfires in southern Australia. Furthermore, it also gave Australia’s ‘national security community’ organisations a wake-up call – including Defence – to look around both in Australia as well as their counterparts abroad, and see who does things best, why that is, and how to adopt those measures across the board.

This is where Defence has lessons it could offer: in how to plan for, prepare for and ultimately conduct complex and demanding responses in concert with a range of other partners. These partners include organisations like domestic emergency services, intelligence agencies, and health, infrastructure and attorney-general’s departments.

Australia’s Army, Air Force and Navy and the other parts of Defence have been working together for a long time; both in a tri-Service way amongst themselves, as well as with the armed forces of other countries – the United States, Britain and New Zealand historically, but increasingly, and more importantly, with regional partners in South-East Asia. Over the years, they have delivered functioning responses on the ground in a range of difficult and dangerous situations.

More recently, Defence has started the same process of sharing ideas with the Australian Federal Police and AusAID – both on the ground in places like the Solomon Islands and at the top decision levels back in Canberra. This sort of working together is hard, as each organisation has its own cultural baggage – quirks and uniqueness in jargon, processes and ways of looking at problems.

So achieving this is no mean feat; it is a constant task that demands lots of attention and good intentions. Nevertheless, there is no question of not doing it: for the military, the price of not getting it right can often be fatal. Even so, Australia needs to take this further, and where appropriate, encourage its partners to consider similar ideas.

Engaging early

The future holds complex and congested spaces where security challenges will occur – both in Australia and abroad – in places like heavily built-up cities in neighbouring countries, hard to reach regions in remote island chains, or even areas that have been contaminated, either by accident or deliberately. The dangers in these places will often be too extreme for non-military personnel to deliver public and government functions like essential services, infrastructure reconstruction, and transport hubs in a safe or effective way.

However, while the ADF is intrinsically able to operate and sustain itself in such circumstances, the ADF and its security partners – both foreign and domestic – must focus on agreeing when and how they need to commence working together, as well as building the willingness to do so. As agencies learn to engage with each other, this assists both planning for bad-news scenarios that might happen in the future, as well as responding quickly when an actual crisis hits.

This ‘engaging early’ applies equally to natural disasters such as tsunamis as it does to non-traditional threats, such as coordinated hostile hacking of computer networks of banks, public transport and power services, ‘dirty’ radiation bombs, biological attacks and even piracy. Indeed, ‘engaging early’ might be considered a prudent maxim for national security communities elsewhere.

Australia’s National Security Statement provided a broader way of looking at what the ADF and the Defence Department have to offer for national security. Moreover, it has prompted people to think in more imaginative, less direct terms of how national security elements can improve their capacity to work cooperatively, learn from each other and draw on relative organisational strengths.

In doing so, governments can do much to foster the properly coordinated national security communities needed to confront the spectre of twenty-first century challenges – both in Australia and more widely.

About the Author

Nick Floyd is Lieutenant Colonel and the Chief of Army’s Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney. He is the author of ‘How Defence can contribute to Australia’s national security strategy’. 

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / East Asia and Asia Pacific

Commentary

As nations navigate a challenging world, Australian Defence Force (ADF) experiences on operations overseas and in major natural disasters have produced lessons that can be adapted and exported to other security stakeholders.

EVERYDAY IT seems that we are reminded of how many different challenges there are to national security. Now, as Canberra begins to consider the successor policy document to its 2008 National Security Statement, it is timely to ask how nations such as Australia can ensure that all the organisations and agencies that need to be involved are engaged, in the best ways possible – the so- called ‘whole-of-government’ approach.

Bombings in Jakarta and elsewhere, recent allegations of plots of terrorism in Australia, fears of pandemics like Swine flu, and climate change effects like ocean acidification, have all emerged at around the same time in recent years. They highlighted the need to both understand and prepare for the spectrum of national security challenges equally confronting Australia and its Asia-Pacific neighbours. These challenges come in all forms and sizes, from natural disasters, to failing states and intervention operations in far-off countries.

Responses are just as diverse. They may range from joint/combined missions involving police, defence, aid agency, and the diplomatic corps like those in the Solomon Islands and Timor-Leste, to cooperation on people-smuggling and terrorism with Asia-Pacific partners like Indonesia, Thailand and Philippines.

National security policy responses

Tabled last year by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, Australia’s first National Security Statement among other things set out a three part game-plan called ‘national security policy responses’. It comprises participation in an ‘activist diplomatic strategy’; delivering a versatile ADF ready to respond; and building a ‘national security community’ and capabilities that work together.

While this year’s Australian Defence White Paper reprised much of this guidance, the National Security Statement game-plan suggests Defence clearly has a wider part in all these responses. These encompass its operational missions both overseas and at home – such as helping in Indonesia after the 2004 tsunami, and the recent bushfires in southern Australia. Furthermore, it also gave Australia’s ‘national security community’ organisations a wake-up call – including Defence – to look around both in Australia as well as their counterparts abroad, and see who does things best, why that is, and how to adopt those measures across the board.

This is where Defence has lessons it could offer: in how to plan for, prepare for and ultimately conduct complex and demanding responses in concert with a range of other partners. These partners include organisations like domestic emergency services, intelligence agencies, and health, infrastructure and attorney-general’s departments.

Australia’s Army, Air Force and Navy and the other parts of Defence have been working together for a long time; both in a tri-Service way amongst themselves, as well as with the armed forces of other countries – the United States, Britain and New Zealand historically, but increasingly, and more importantly, with regional partners in South-East Asia. Over the years, they have delivered functioning responses on the ground in a range of difficult and dangerous situations.

More recently, Defence has started the same process of sharing ideas with the Australian Federal Police and AusAID – both on the ground in places like the Solomon Islands and at the top decision levels back in Canberra. This sort of working together is hard, as each organisation has its own cultural baggage – quirks and uniqueness in jargon, processes and ways of looking at problems.

So achieving this is no mean feat; it is a constant task that demands lots of attention and good intentions. Nevertheless, there is no question of not doing it: for the military, the price of not getting it right can often be fatal. Even so, Australia needs to take this further, and where appropriate, encourage its partners to consider similar ideas.

Engaging early

The future holds complex and congested spaces where security challenges will occur – both in Australia and abroad – in places like heavily built-up cities in neighbouring countries, hard to reach regions in remote island chains, or even areas that have been contaminated, either by accident or deliberately. The dangers in these places will often be too extreme for non-military personnel to deliver public and government functions like essential services, infrastructure reconstruction, and transport hubs in a safe or effective way.

However, while the ADF is intrinsically able to operate and sustain itself in such circumstances, the ADF and its security partners – both foreign and domestic – must focus on agreeing when and how they need to commence working together, as well as building the willingness to do so. As agencies learn to engage with each other, this assists both planning for bad-news scenarios that might happen in the future, as well as responding quickly when an actual crisis hits.

This ‘engaging early’ applies equally to natural disasters such as tsunamis as it does to non-traditional threats, such as coordinated hostile hacking of computer networks of banks, public transport and power services, ‘dirty’ radiation bombs, biological attacks and even piracy. Indeed, ‘engaging early’ might be considered a prudent maxim for national security communities elsewhere.

Australia’s National Security Statement provided a broader way of looking at what the ADF and the Defence Department have to offer for national security. Moreover, it has prompted people to think in more imaginative, less direct terms of how national security elements can improve their capacity to work cooperatively, learn from each other and draw on relative organisational strengths.

In doing so, governments can do much to foster the properly coordinated national security communities needed to confront the spectre of twenty-first century challenges – both in Australia and more widely.

About the Author

Nick Floyd is Lieutenant Colonel and the Chief of Army’s Visiting Fellow at the Lowy Institute for International Policy in Sydney. He is the author of ‘How Defence can contribute to Australia’s national security strategy’. 

Categories: RSIS Commentary Series

Popular Links

About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

Connect with Us

rsis.ntu
rsis_ntu
rsisntu
rsisvideocast
school/rsis-ntu
rsis.sg
rsissg
RSIS
RSS
Subscribe to RSIS Publications
Subscribe to RSIS Events

Getting to RSIS

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

Click here for direction to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
    Help us improve

      Rate your experience with this website
      123456
      Not satisfiedVery satisfied
      What did you like?
      0/255 characters
      What can be improved?
      0/255 characters
      Your email
      Please enter a valid email.
      Thank you for your feedback.
      This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
      OK
      Latest Book
      more info