Search

Begin New Search Content Type Special Report

331. Artificial intelligence: your questions answered

Author:
Kathy Nicholson and Adam Slonim
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
This collection of short papers developed by the Australian Institute for Machine Learning (AIML) at the University of Adelaide and the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) offers a refreshing primer into the world of artificial intelligence and the opportunities and risks this technology presents to Australia. AI’s potential role in enhancing Australia’s defence capabilities, strengthening alliances and deterring those who would seek to harm our interests was significantly enhanced as a result of the September 2021 announcement of the AUKUS partnership between the US, the UK and Australia. Perhaps not surprisingly, much public attention on AUKUS has focused on developing a plan ‘identifying the optimal pathway to deliver at least eight nuclear-powered submarines for Australia’. This AIML/ASPI report is a great starting point for individuals looking to better understand the growing role of AI in our lives. I commend the authors and look forward to the amazing AI developments to come that will, we must all hope, reshape the world for a more peaceful, stable and prosperous future.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Science and Technology, Cybersecurity, and Artificial Intelligence
Political Geography:
Australia

332. The Hunter frigate: an assessment

Author:
David Shackleton
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
Powerful and survivable large surface combatants, in numbers commensurate with the expected threat and national budgetary limitations, remain central in the order of battle of any navy of a middle-power such as Australia, but they need to be fit for purpose. Australia’s government policy has acknowledged deteriorating geostrategic circumstances since 2009, culminating in its 2020 Strategic Update where we are not left in any doubt of the concern over China’s intentions and a stretched United States. The warships Australia acquires should be suitable for the circumstances it finds itself in. Doctrine describes how the fighting will be done; policy determines which fight to prepare for. This report explores the disconnect between doctrine and policy, which has led Australia to building a warship that is unsuited for its purposes. It offers better alternatives, and suggestions to prevent being in a similar situation in the future, including using AUKUS to form a relationship with the USN to participate in its forthcoming new large destroyer program.
Topic:
Defense Policy, National Security, Armed Forces, and Navy
Political Geography:
Australia

333. Building genuine trust: A framework and strategy for Indigenous STEM and cyber pathways

Author:
Huon Curtis, Dion Devow, Khwezi Nkwanyana, Matthew Page, and Meg Thompson
Publication Date:
04-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
Indigenous recruitment and retention in the Australian Defence organisation is defined by a high target of 5% participation in the armed services and 3% in the Australian Public Service component of the Defence Department by 2025. The participation target is a point of pride and a source of clear goodwill and has provided momentum in several areas of Defence for Indigenous employment and pathways. However, the individual areas of success and effort are yet to translate into an effective whole-of-Defence framework with cohesive lines of effort. This policy report suggests how that can change. It provides a framework and strategy for Defence to support science, technology, engineering and mathematics (STEM) recruitment and retention and cybersecurity careers, particularly through engagement with the vocational education and training system and through targeted relationship building with university- and school-based Indigenous STEM initiatives. We propose that Defence should enact a wider set of supporting measures—particularly in data and reporting to track professional development—that’s more likely to create more sustainable success that delivers organisational improvements and outcomes for Defence. That should include mechanisms to enhance the achievements of the Indigenous Procurement Policy. Defence must ensure that it meets its immediate skills shortfalls as well as its long-term obligations under the Closing the Gap initiative and the Defence Reconciliation Action Plan to foster genuine and meaningful relationships built upon trust with Indigenous peoples. We suggest how that’s possible through a framework and 56 recommendations focusing on 12 areas of activity: data, reporting and user-experience web design; career pathways; defence and technology contractors; community engagement; procurement and business development; veterans’ employment and procurement; the vocational education sector; universities; recruitment; retention; coordination with other public agencies; and international partnerships. Action on those recommendations will ensure that Defence is an employer of choice and fosters genuine and meaningful trust with Australia’s Indigenous peoples. And it will also build Defence’s capability to keep our nation safe and secure in a more dangerous world.
Topic:
Defense Policy, Armed Forces, Cybersecurity, Indigenous, Recruitment, and STEM
Political Geography:
Australia

334. AUKUS Update #1: May 2022

Author:
Marcus Hellyer and Ben Stevens
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
On the 16th of September 2021, the leaders of Australia, the UK and the US announced the creation of a new trilateral security partnership called ‘AUKUS’—Australia, the United Kingdom and the United States. The three national leaders stated, ‘We will foster deeper integration of security and defense-related science, technology, industrial bases, and supply chains. And in particular, we will significantly deepen cooperation on a range of security and defense capabilities.’ At a time of rapidly increasing strategic uncertainty, when it’s increasingly clear that authoritarian regimes are willing to use military power to achieve their goals, it’s important to monitor the implementation of AUKUS so that governments and the public can assess whether it’s achieving the goal of accelerating the fielding of crucial military technologies. To track the implementation of AUKUS, ASPI will publish regular updates on progress. This is the first of those updates.
Topic:
Foreign Policy, Defense Policy, National Security, Alliance, and AUKUS
Political Geography:
United Kingdom, Australia, Asia-Pacific, and United States of America

335. Understanding the price of military equipment

Author:
Marcus Hellyer
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI)
Abstract:
Confusion reigns in discussions about the cost of the Department of Defence’s equipment projects. Whether we’re talking about media articles, parliamentary committee hearings, letters to the editor, duelling internet commentators or any other forms of discourse that address Defence acquisitions, the only thing that’s clear is that we’re almost always talking past each other when it comes to the cost of military equipment. Defence doesn’t help when it releases only a bare minimum of information. This sorry state of affairs reached its peak several years ago, when it turned out that when Defence said that the cost of the Attack-class submarine was $50 billion it really meant that the cost was somewhere around $90 billion. The situation gets even murkier when commentators compare the cost of military acquisition projects here in Australia with ones overseas. It’s very rare that we can make a direct, apples-to-apples comparison between local and overseas projects, and very often it’s more like apples-to-orangutans. Being completely unaware of the basis of the costs they’re comparing doesn’t stop some commentators from making strong claims about the rapacity of foreign arms companies or the competence of the Australian Defence Department. This report attempts to be a guide for the perplexed. It’s not a technical manual, but a plain-English discussion that unpacks the cost of Australian defence equipment projects. While it would be useful for those working in the field of defence and strategic studies to read the whole report, it can also be used a reference tool explaining key terms such as ‘constant’ and ‘out-turned’ dollars or different cost-estimation methodologies. It’s important up front to acknowledge that the cost of modern military equipment can be eye-wateringly high, and there’s always a ‘sticker shock’ when we compare the costs of military systems with the costs of their civilian counterparts. Those costs are driven by the constant quest for better capability that provides an advantage in a life-and-death business. That striving in turn drives rates of cost escalation that greatly outstrip inflation in the broader economy. No Western country has yet found a way out of that endless cost spiral, and Australia is certainly not an exception. Anyone discussing cost has to understand what’s included in the price. It’s here that comparisons of Australian and overseas projects are difficult. Australian defence project costs include all the elements needed to get a capability into service, which are known as the fundamental inputs to capability. They comprise much more than the military equipment itself and can include facilities, training systems, documentation, intellectual property, integration of the new equipment (such as a missile) onto existing systems (such as the aircraft that will launch it), science and technology programs, and so on. Elements other than the equipment aren’t trivial and can sometimes make up half of the total acquisition cost. Australian projects also include significant risk provisions, known as contingency. In contrast, most overseas programs don’t include all of those elements, so their cost can appear significantly smaller. In this report, I provide a hypothetical example that illustrates how the cost grows as we include these factors. If we start with available off-the-shelf equipment costing $1 billion and adjust for price escalation (including inflation and capability enhancements) and factor in all fundamental inputs to capability and contingency, we quickly get to a total acquisition cost of $3.5 billion. That’s before we include operating costs. The report also briefly examines a current, real-world example by comparing the cost of Australia’s Hunter-class frigate project with analogous international projects. While we attempt to make some assessments, the exercise confirms that comparisons are difficult when we don’t have visibility of what’s included in the price tag. We also attempt to debunk the popular and deeply held view that Defence projects frequently go over budget. Based on the public evidence, the opposite is in fact the case. Once the government considers a business case and gives Defence approval to enter into contracts to acquire a particular system with a set budget, the department rarely goes over budget. However, it must be said that, before that point, Defence’s estimates of the funding needed to acquire a capability can grow significantly as its understanding of its requirements and the possible solutions develops. It’s here that the infamous ‘blowouts’ generally occur, not after actual acquisition commences. Some commentators have suggested that focusing on the cost ignores the value those systems provide—why quibble over a few billion here or there when the security of the country is at stake? I’d argue that it’s difficult to assess value for money if you don’t understand how much money you’re paying. This study aims to help Australians understand how much they’re paying. It’s only then that we can make informed decisions about military spending.
Topic:
National Security, Defense Spending, and Military
Political Geography:
Australia

336. Spring 2022 Snapshot on International Educational Exchange

Author:
Mirka Martel and Julie Baer
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Institute of International Education (IIE)
Abstract:
The Spring 2022 Snapshot on International Educational Exchange continues the commitment of the Institute of International Education (IIE) to map the effects of key current events, especially the COVID-19 pandemic, on international educational exchange to and from the United States. Since 2005, we have released the Fall International Student Enrollment Snapshot to understand the most up-to-date enrollment trends at the start of each academic year.i Since early 2020, we have released four COVID-19 Snapshot Reports to map the effects of COVID-19 on U.S. colleges and universities.ii This Spring Snapshot builds on both sets of snapshot surveys while expanding our analysis in the COVID-19 series to include other emerging trends affecting student mobility. In the spring of 2022, most U.S. colleges and universities continue to rebound from the effects of the COVID-19 pandemic. With increasing levels of international student and faculty mobility, our report analyzes the effects of this reopening on international students studying at U.S. institutions and U.S. students traveling abroad. In addition to COVID-19 effects, we include a special section on the Ukraine crisis and U.S. institutions’ support to international students from Ukraine and Russia, as well as the realities of university partnerships with higher education institutions in the region. The Ukraine crisis, and its effect on international students and universities worldwide, remind us of the significant impact that conflict can have on international education. The four sections of the report present data from 559 U.S. higher education institutions and analyze (1) international students studying at U.S. institutions in spring 2022 and application and selection processes for prospective students, (2) the effects of the Ukraine crisis on international student mobility and university partnerships, (3) the prospects of international students on U.S. campuses in fall 2022 and their mode of study, and (4) realities of U.S. study abroad in spring 2022 and academic year 2022/23.
Topic:
Education, Higher Education, COVID-19, and International Exchange
Political Geography:
Global Focus and United States of America

337. South Korea’s Place in the Indo-Pacific: A Research Showcase for Pacific Forum’s Korea Foundation Fellows

Author:
Rob York, Seongwon Lee, Su Hyun Lee, Eun A Jo, Jae Chang, Kangkyu Lee, Jong-hwa Ahn, and Juyoung Kim
Publication Date:
06-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
Papers by the Pacific Forum’s current and previous Korea Foundation Fellows examine pressing issues facing the Korean Peninsula in the 21st century. These include the Great Power Competition between the US and China, North Korea and nuclear security, critical new technologies, and energy security. These papers by emerging leaders in the Korean Studies field offer fresh perspectives on Korean security issues – both well-known and emerging – useful for watchers of the peninsula both inside and out of Northeast Asia. Authors of this volume participated in the Pacific Forum’s Korea Foundation Fellowship program between 2019-2022, with the generous support of the Korea Foundation.
Topic:
Security, Science and Technology, Weapons, Leadership, Multilateralism, Disinformation, Cooperation, and Energy
Political Geography:
Japan, Asia, South Korea, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

338. US-China Mutual Vulnerability: Perspectives on the Debate

Author:
David Santoro
Publication Date:
05-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
The study US-China Mutual Vulnerability: Perspectives on the Debate analyzes the mutual vulnerability question in US-China strategic nuclear relations. It asks whether the United States should acknowledge mutual vulnerability with China and, if so, how and under what conditions it should do so. The goal is not to give a yes-or-no answer but to provide a comprehensive examination of the issue to better understand the benefits, costs, and risks associated with various options. The study includes chapters by US, Japanese, South Korean, Australian, and Chinese scholars.
Topic:
International Relations, Foreign Policy, Nuclear Weapons, Strategic Competition, and Vulnerability
Political Geography:
China, Asia, North America, and United States of America

339. Resilient Alliance: Moving the U.S.-Philippines Security Relations Forward

Author:
Jeffrey Ordaniel and Carl W Baker
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
Authors of this volume participated in the inaugural U.S.- Philippines Next-Generation Leaders Initiative, sponsored by the U.S. Department of State, through the U.S. Embassy in the Philippines. With backgrounds from academia, public policy, civil society and industry, the cohort brings rich insights on the past, present, and future of the U.S.-Philippines bilateral security relations. The statements made and views expressed are solely the responsibility of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of their respective organizations and affiliations. Pacific Forum’s publications do not necessarily reflect the positions of its staff, donors and sponsors.
Topic:
International Relations, Security, International Cooperation, Natural Disasters, Cybersecurity, Maritime, and Alliance
Political Geography:
Philippines, North America, United States of America, and Indo-Pacific

340. Shifting Supply Chains from China into India as an Effective Grand Strategy in the Indo-Pacific Region

Author:
Akhil Ramesh
Publication Date:
03-2022
Content Type:
Special Report
Institution:
Pacific Forum
Abstract:
Between 2016 and 2020, nations of the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad) became patently aware of the risks posed by an authoritarian state such as China controlling much of global value chains. This realization among leaders of the Quad nations can be attributed to a general rise in populism around the globe—which ignited a debate on globalization—to the COVID-19 pandemic, China’s acts of economic coercion against Australia and aggression against India in the Galwan Valley. To prevent China from weaponizing interdependence, nations of the grouping have launched several supply chain diversification and economic security initiatives such as the Supply Chain Resilience Initiative (SCRI) and Economic Prosperity Network (EPN). While these initiatives are a step in the right direction, a larger reformatory initiative is needed to prevent diversification projects from becoming a flash in the pan. Shifting supply chains out of China and into India has the potential to be that much needed reformative initiative. This exploratory study of the challenges and opportunities associated with shifting supply chains into India tests this hypothesis by examining the domestic political economy in India and the complexities of the US-India relationship. This study observes major impediments to a supply chain diversification project. One, trade protectionism is a common feature among Indian administrations. India’s diverse political landscape has warranted coalition governments, which has prevented administrations from taking reformative action on liberalizing the economy. Two, the US-India relationship historically had ups and downs. The two democracies even came to the brink of war in 1971, and 20 years later, the US unleashed economic sanctions on India for their nuclear tests. A concerted recalibration of the US-India relationship is required to solidify any form of economic partnership, short of an alliance. To summarize, the Indian government should continue liberalizing its economy through the land, labor, and corporate governance reforms. The US should adopt a more conciliatory approach to India’s domestic issues to avoid fissures in the relationship. Subsequently, the US, Australia, and Japan will be able to capitalize on the opportunities the Indian economy and the Indo-Pacific economy at large present for supply chain diversification. These opportunities can be capitalized through creating a trade bloc exclusive for the Quad and establishing a wealth fund to fund investments in the wider region.
Topic:
Security, Economy, Grand Strategy, and Supply Chains
Political Geography:
China, India, Asia, and Indo-Pacific