{"id":53162,"date":"2020-01-29T06:00:01","date_gmt":"2020-01-28T19:00:01","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=53162"},"modified":"2020-01-28T18:25:12","modified_gmt":"2020-01-28T07:25:12","slug":"reassessing-australias-defence-policy-part-1-what-is-the-adf-for","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/reassessing-australias-defence-policy-part-1-what-is-the-adf-for\/","title":{"rendered":"Reassessing Australia\u2019s defence policy (part 1): What is the ADF for?"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/figure>\n

Four years have now passed since the release of the 2016 defence white paper<\/em><\/a>, the most recent comprehensive review of Australia\u2019s defence policy and capability. The main contours of that document were set down as early as 2014, which was arguably too early to take full account of the geostrategic implications of Russia\u2019s invasion of Ukraine and China\u2019s island-building in the South China Sea.<\/p>\n

Since that time, the defence policy of Australia\u2019s friends and allies in the northern hemisphere has changed dramatically and now focuses on major-power conflict with Russia and China. Calls for a new white paper<\/a> or a reassessment<\/a> of defence policy in Australia are also getting louder\u2014Hugh White<\/a> has provided the most eloquent and radical, but far from only, call for action.<\/p>\n

Why did it take three years for the government to announce<\/a> a \u2018re-assessment of the strategic underpinnings of the 2016 Defence White Paper\u2019? Compared with Scandinavia, NATO or Japan, Australia is less immediately exposed to Chinese and Russian military adventurism. In addition, three elements of the 2016 white paper have contributed to a relatively stable defence policy but also present particular challenges for the future:<\/p>\n