{"id":30275,"date":"2017-01-24T06:00:14","date_gmt":"2017-01-23T19:00:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=30275"},"modified":"2017-01-20T14:00:42","modified_gmt":"2017-01-20T03:00:42","slug":"dwp-defence-partisanship","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/dwp-defence-partisanship\/","title":{"rendered":"DWP: Defence With Partisanship"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
In his usual fashion, Peter Edwards\u2019 recent report \u2018Defence White Papers at 40<\/a>\u2019 offers an elegant, illuminating and historically grounded review. Edwards is right to cast his attention to this habit of government, noting that Australia managed to survive for 75 years without one, before producing seven in the next 40 years.<\/p>\n Given the growing dissatisfaction many have with recent documents, as well as the uncertainty of our times, his call to \u2018draw breath\u2019 on the practice is worth considering. As Edwards notes, his paper is far from alone in critiquing the quality of Australia\u2019s contemporary strategic policy debate.<\/p>\n A common conclusion among the critics is the need for institutional change. Edwards argues for better use of parliamentary statements and use of the committees. James Brown<\/a> has called for better involvement and education of our politicians on strategy; John Faulkner<\/a> for better judicial oversight of intelligence; and many voices<\/a> have supported parliament taking away from the executive power over the use of force.<\/p>\n That is, more positions of authority, more power to parliament, more independence for auditors and assessors. Where the culture of the debate is mentioned, it\u2019s simply to refrain that we have too much pointless bickering and need steady and strong bipartisanship. But I\u2019m not sure the case can be made that Defence White Papers suffer from partisanship (as Edwards alleges) or that bipartisanship produces stronger documents.<\/p>\n We\u2019ve had three significant Defence White Papers. Two of them are singled out for praise by Edwards: the 1976 and 1987 documents. Both of these however were fundamentally the product of partisan debate. While the 1976 document reflects the influence of both the Coalition (1966\u20131972 and 1975\u20136) and Labor (1972\u20131975), their differences were bitterly argued over at the time. The document reflected a fragile\u2014and temporary\u2014moment of agreement as both parties were forced to shift their world view (most notably with the Coalition accepting the limits of the alliance; the ALP accepting its benefits).<\/p>\n