Writer
Mike Scrafton
Mike Scrafton was a Deputy Secretary in the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, senior Defence executive, CEO of a state statutory body, and chief of staff and ministerial adviser to the minister for defence.
-
All pathways to AUKUS submarines sub-optimal
It is difficult to reconcile the public documents and statements relating to the AUKUS nuclear-power submarine project. Unlike the usual procurement process the defence policy justification is opaque, the schedule and costs are unclear, and the implications for Australian industry vague. Continue reading »
-
Acquiring B-21s to attack Chinese Pacific bases ignores strategic reality
B-21s for Australia? Not on the basis of defending against a Chinese base in Australia’s nearer region. Defence policy often proceeds under a number of heroic and muddled assumptions. Most likely, the Defence Strategic Review (DSR) will also. These must be tested. Continue reading »
-
Post-liberal, post-democratic and authoritarian; is that America’s future?
Australians see American politics as a traditional electoral contest between Democrats and Republicans, or progressives and conservatives. However, a more illiberal, intolerant, and authoritarian political faction is being forged and its presence is being felt in mainstream American politics. Continue reading »
-
America’s shiny submarine lure reels in Australia’s sovereignty
This year’s AUSMIN further advertised how the lure of submarines has facilitated the US military colonisation of Northern Australia. AUSMIN meetings are now performative art. The Australian side acts as though it has agency and the Americans pretend they aren’t just a resentful fading hegemon. Continue reading »
-
DeSantis’ ideology is clearer, darker and more coherent than Trump’s
DeSantis would likely deliver the next staggering blow to liberal democracy in America. He has made his ideology unambiguously clear, and it is darker and more coherent than Trump’s. America’s allies would be well served to monitor closely the political tides as the 2024 presidential election approaches. Continue reading »
-
US National Defence Strategy reveals Australia’s nuclear deterrence role
The obvious problem with Australia’s defence policy is the confusion between defence of Australia and fighting wars far from Australia. The argument for pursuing the former is incontestable; this is a key obligation government has towards taxpaying citizens. The latter is of questionable justification. Continue reading »
-
B-52s at RAAF Tindal commits Australia to America’s nuclear war plans
It’s difficult to avoid the conclusion that Australia is not just complicit in, but committed to, America’s nuclear war planning. Continue reading »
-
US Admirals driving AUKUS had conflict of interest: Washington Post
The Washington Post has disclosed that a group of US Navy admirals critical to shaping secret negotiations for the AUKUS nuclear submarine deal had undeclared conflicts of interests. This is indefensible and must be subject to a public review. Continue reading »
-
US National Security Strategy: dogma for a misconceived crusade
American National Security Strategies (NSS) are a bizarre hegemonic specie. The latest version is saturated with more than usual hyperbole. The Biden Administration’s obsession that the defining characteristic of international reality is an ontological dichotomy between democracy and autocracy distorts the Strategy’s perspective. Continue reading »
-
The Defence Strategic Review: Pop psychology and Game of Thrones drives fear of war
At a time when Defence policy is being reviewed, public discussion needs to be rigorous and evidence based. There is an obligation on prominent experts to avoid unsupported speculation and alarmism. To do otherwise simply clouds the nature of the challenges and eliminates non-military approaches. Continue reading »
-
The Defence Strategic Review: The US Taiwan Policy Act would be a game-changing act of provocation
The Australian government, perhaps initially through the DSR, must explain clearly to the Australian public what cost it is prepared to pay as a tool of American policy, or how it intends to maintain its sovereignty and ensure the security and safety of Australians. Continue reading »
-
The Defence Strategic Review: the greatest threat to Australia’s security arises from its uncritical attachment to the United States
The Defence Strategic Review, or the Porcupine Strategy, cannot ignore the reality that the greatest threat to Australia’s security arises from its uncritical attachment to the United States, and to the assumption that the US will persist as a reliable and rational partner into the future. Continue reading »
-
Would Australian defence of Taiwan amount to the crime of aggression?
The Defence Minister’s Cabinet colleagues must be able to rely him on to provide authoritative guidance on the legal use of military force. The public has a right to expect his statements on international law to be meaningful and correct. Richard Marles has not demonstrated that capacity. Continue reading »
-
Defence reviews; what are they good for?
It is essential that the new Defence review not degenerate into the usual ritualistic orthodoxy. In these perilous times it cannot be allowed to become a narrow, jargon-laden, orthodox military consideration but must situate Australia’s strategy and military posture in the context of the important foreign policy issues. Continue reading »
-
Ausmin and Aukus: It’s even worse than you think. Australia is now openly a cog in America’s war plans
Nothing exemplifies the loss of national sovereignty, and the abandonment of strategic autonomy, like handing the war decision over to the US. The submarine issue is simply a blind. AUKUS is just a distraction. Continue reading »
-
Facing “Hothouse Earth”, will Labor continue half-a-century of inaction?
In a new book, Hothouse Earth, Bill McGuire depicts “the coming climatic catastrophe” and argues “that there is now no chance of us avoiding a perilous, all-pervasive climate breakdown”. Continue reading »
-
International law and rules-based order are different in important ways for Australia
Australian politicians appear purposefully blind to domestic developments in America; and especially poorly briefed on the subterranean scholarly debates that suddenly emerge as new policy directions. For instance, understanding the intellectual battle over international law that has been taking place in professional journals and academic monographs is of vital importance to Australia’s public diplomacy and Continue reading »
-
Mr Marles tugs the forelock in Washington
New Defence Ministers ritually wend their way to Washington to offer up jaded homilies. Full of hagiographic accounts of ANZUS and strained assertions of shared values, they often also display a submission to America’s strategic objectives. The new Minister’s visit, however, foreshadows a dangerous abandonment of fundamental elements of national sovereignty by the Labor government. Continue reading »
-
War over the rules-base order doesn’t make sense
Going to war over the rules-based order seems unremarkable to our leaders. The nature of the rules-based order, and how it would be preserved by conflict, seems to be intuitively perceived by political leaders. Yet, the elevation of the rules-based order to a status so sacrosanct that the destruction of civilisation is justified in its Continue reading »
-
Beijing not Madrid, Prime Minister, would be more in Australia’s interests
In the national security domain, changing governments is like changing spark plugs in that nothing else changes. From their darkened cloisters the militarists befuddle new ministers with gloomy prognostications while proffering prophylactics like deterrence, alliances, and interoperability. And so the Prime Minister is off to the Madrid NATO conference. Continue reading »
-
The American sophist: Blinken weaves a Bidenesque fantasy
In a time of multiple crises the sophistry of our leaders is more than dangerous. The narratives their words weave might advance their personal agendas but will leave the world ill-equipped to handle pandemics, wars, social upheaval, and climate disruption. Continue reading »
-
Proactive Defence diplomacy not American militarism better supports Australia’s security
Well, that didn’t take long. The names have changed but the script still comes from Washington. There is not going to be a rethinking and resetting of strategic policy by the Albanese government in the same way they have begun correcting the foreign and climate policy failures of the Morrison era. The rigid shutters of Continue reading »
-
The window for Albanese to assert Australia’s sovereignty is closing
It’s far too early for a running commentary on the Albanese government. The new Prime Minister handled himself as well as could be expected in Tokyo and dispatching the Foreign Minister to the Pacific while her Chinese counterpart is in the region is a good move. Hopefully, the new Cabinet will bring a new perspective Continue reading »
-
After Ukraine a fractured and unravelling global order will confront the next Australian government
Putin’s forces might not progress far beyond the Dnieper River, yet the invasion will reshape the world in which the next Australian government operates. Evidence indicates that pouring funds into Ukraine’s reconstruction could feed an already corrupt elite Continue reading »
-
Ethics and war: The Ukrainian tragedy
Among the headline grabbing events and the geopolitical speculations of the Ukrainian tragedy the ethical rights and wrongs of the conflict are largely ignored. For his criminal invasion, Putin rightly bears the greatest moral and legal opprobrium for the appalling death toll, atrocities, and widespread levelling of parts of eastern Ukraine. But once the war Continue reading »
-
Habitual bipartisanship is toxic to good defence policy
The dominant object of Australia’s capability development program is simply to “continue to deepen Australia’s alliance with the United States”. Politicisation and secrecy has allowed successive governments to exclude voters from defence policy decisions of the utmost importance. Only a radical shift in the portfolio’s governance can restore confidence and integrity to defence policy, and Continue reading »
-
The need for a department of climate change is now self-evident
The time has come for a powerful government Climate Department to allow strong action on legislating, regulating, and coordinating mitigation, adaptation, and transition. Continue reading »
-
Don’t swallow the prunes – ADF’s inter-service rivalry on display
Admiral Prune’s unabashed bid for Navy funding has provided a window in to inter-service rivalry in the ADF. Also, it gives an unfortunate glimpse of the confused thinking infecting Defence. Continue reading »
-
Ukraine: A victory narrative will be hard to maintain for Europe and America
Wars end. The peace settlement between Russia and Ukraine will determine whether President Putin or President Biden achieved his policy aims in the war. It seems unlikely that America will be able call it a win. Continue reading »
-
Australia is ignoring important lessons from war from Ukraine
Defence policy and the reality of war should be at the centre of election following the Russian aggression in Ukraine . But Australian political leaders continue to ignore that reality. Continue reading »
