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.
-
Public service reform must be future focussed
Public service reform is back as are the old tropes of merit based appointments, frank and fearless advice, and better preparation and training for APS leaders. These legacy markers of public service excellence need a thorough rethink if tomorrow’s challenges are to be met. Continue reading »
-
Abandoned sovereignty: Australia’s intelligence function colonised by US
That the Albanese government could further compromise Australia’s sovereignty, international integrity and national interests seemed inconceivable. Yet, intelligence, a vital government function inextricably connected with independence and protecting national interest, is being penetrated and colonised by the Americans. Continue reading »
-
AUKUS: A US device to lock Australia into the anti-China coalition
Around a week ago the Financial Review confirmed what many observers had taken for granted: the US offered nuclear propulsion technology to Australia under the AUKUS arrangements in order to lock it into the anti-China coalition. Continue reading »
-
Oh the weaponising: another symptom of decline
‘Weaponise’ is the word de jour in America. Aside from the crude partisan employment of the term by Trump and other American politicians, it has subtly found its way into mainstream publications. Such loaded terms corrupt analysis by imposing implicit judgements that obviate the need for serious thought. Once condemned for weaponising, it cannot then Continue reading »
-
The courage to end the Alliance
While not yet the majority view, a consensus is growing that the US alliance is no longer in Australia’s national interest and that the AUKUS partnership should be abandoned. The argument for distancing Australian foreign policy from that of America is strong in theory, but its practical implementation would be inordinately difficult and risky. That’s Continue reading »
-
The zealot, the disrupter, and the ideologue: America’s presidential choices
Biden, Trump, or DeSantis; the zealot, the disrupter, or the ideologue are the choices confronting American voters. Individuals matter. Trump’s mercurial and transactional approach to foreign policy and his isolationist tendencies are well known. Back in the Whitehouse he would again be a disrupter, and perhaps worse. But an uncompromising Biden or empowered DeSantis present Continue reading »
-
The militarisation of space – can Australia avoid following America?
America’s space policy reveals its hegemonic obsession and the future quandaries for Australian policy. Even America’s approach to exploration and colonisation of the Moon is only comprehensible in terms of terrestrial geopolitics. It now expects the world to bow to its power in outer space. Continue reading »
-
Civil-military relations and the AUKUS debate: no public role for the military
Subordination of the military to the civil power in a democracy is non-negotiable, but is often taken for granted. More democracies falter because of a breakdown of civil-military relations than through external subversion or foreign aggression. Continue reading »
-
Will Australia always follow the innocent nation into war?
A war in East Asia provoked by American intransigence would be no less disastrous for Australia than one caused by China’s ambitions. While China’s intentions and plans are inaccessible and should generate prudent caution, the well-researched drivers of America’s strategic policy should also produce grave reservations within the Albanese government. Continue reading »
-
Postwar Ukraine will pose the hardest problems
Hopefully, behind the scenes, policymakers are well into postwar preparations for Ukraine. The conduct of the fighting naturally absorbs most attention in a war, but conflicts come to an end one way or another and often that’s when the hard issues emerge. Another Afghanistan or Iraq debacle must be avoided. Continue reading »
-
All over bar the shouting: the inevitability of a submarine farce
The AUKUS submarine fetish has colonised the minds of the Labor ministers and ejected practical commonsense. Continue reading »
-
AUKUS: time to talk about time and submarines
Scheduled for the 2040s, while the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines might never eventuate, the theatre surrounding the announcement provides a publicly-digestible narrative for the surrender of Northern Australia to the American military in the present day. Continue reading »
-
An AUKUS ménage à trois
As the government offers new hints at the ‘optimal path’ for the AUKUS nuclear-powered submarines, the questions about the viability of the project mount. The political pressure to out-muscle the Coalition on ‘national security’, if that’s what is driving the Labor government’s enthusiasm for this impending car-crash, should not be allowed to undermine the national Continue reading »
-
American values on show in Jerusalem
Under the shelter of the ‘shared values’ mantra the leaders of America and its vassal states like Australia find justification for militarisation and hegemony. Secretary of State Blinken’s comments in Jerusalem, while sharing a podium with the Israeli Prime Minister, have exposed the utter meaningless and hypocrisy of this formula. Continue reading »
-
Tanks for Ukraine won’t bring peace negotiations and an end to the war closer
Supply of main battle tanks will commit the NATO allies and partners to the war in a way that makes their involvement irreversible and could be effectively the first major step toward a war with Russia. Continue reading »
-
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 »
