{"id":9715,"date":"2013-10-01T06:00:45","date_gmt":"2013-09-30T20:00:45","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=9715"},"modified":"2013-10-16T13:34:48","modified_gmt":"2013-10-16T02:34:48","slug":"australia-canada-engagement-and-special-operations-forces","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/australia-canada-engagement-and-special-operations-forces\/","title":{"rendered":"Australia\u2013Canada engagement and special operations forces"},"content":{"rendered":"

\"The<\/a>At first glance, the ASPI and CIGI push<\/a> for Australia to help Canada engage our region to advance its economic interests doesn\u2019t make much sense. Canada is doing nicely already\u2014like in China for example<\/a> (PDF)\u2014and maybe should be helping us. And, economically, what has Canada\u2014just like the Pythonesque Romans\u2014ever done for us? Just ask<\/a> the Big Australian: BHP-Billiton<\/a>! Moreover, our new government seems keener on advancing our economic interests<\/a> than someone else\u2019s.<\/p>\n

Peter Jennings’ argument<\/a> however, is compelling. It’d be helpful to have another middle power at regional meetings. That’s enough of a shared objective to form the basis of our developing engagement strategy\u2014although others suggest that stronger factors pulling Australia and Canada together are historical legacies and debts of gratitude<\/a>, or our being similar countries with assumed similar interests (here<\/a> and here<\/a>). A consensus from recent events<\/a> (PDF) is that some practical measures within existing frameworks are needed to advance this common objective rather than creating some new meeting opportunity\u2014ASEAN already has plenty of those.<\/p>\n

What principles should guide this newfound enthusiasm for cross-Pacific engagement? I suggest that the agenda for practical activity needs to be:<\/p>\n