The Echidna Strategy: Australia’s Search for Power and Peace | Sam Roggeveen
Вставка
- Опубліковано 27 вер 2024
- With the global balance of power shifting, Australia will need to be able to defend itself without American help.
In his new book The Echidna Strategy (Black Inc. Books, August 2023), Sam Roggeveen - director of the Lowy Institute's International Security Program - overturns the conventional wisdom about Australia's security.
He argues that America's security is not threatened by China's rise, and that once Australia accepts that conclusion, the entire edifice on which its security has been built shifts, requiring a fresh approach. And that despite the rapid growth of China's military, defending Australia need not be particularly difficult.
The Echidna Strategy sheds new light on the contest for leadership in Asia and the strategy Australia needs to thrive. This includes a radically different approach to defence. Above all, it means a bolder Australian foreign policy, with three goals: leadership in the Pacific; a much stronger relationship with Indonesia; and a regional order centred on a gathering of its great powers. In the wake of a shift in the global power balance, how can Australia best protect itself?
Is this the “ Dame Echidna” strategy. ?
SE Asia has always been a secondary theatre to the United States? 😅Who is this clown? It’s as if Philippines doesn’t exist to this bloke. It was a US colony for almost 50 years and the prime focus of ww2 for the Pacific. It’s the most important strategic real estate in the Pacific. Philippines will be the dominant naval power in SE Asia not Indonesia. Austal being based there etc.
Yes. Europe has the been the primary theatre for the US since the beginning of the 20th century, not SEA.
As if PH doesn't exist? Why is that the case?
The prime focus for the Pacific in WW2 is very debatable. Many other contenders, assuming the 'prime focus' is even a valid concept. China, Malaya, India, Indonesia, Hawaii were all more stratgeically relevant than The Philippines. The Philippine campaign was notoriously championed by MacArthur arguably more to protect his own pride and save face than the country being a relevant strategic target in 1944.
It's important real estate, but not the most important. Countries mentioned in last paragraph fit that distinction much better.
Philippines dominant naval power? Very doubtful unless their GDP per capita gets a 15-20 fold increase +concerted effort in it's development , which is unlikely assuming it remains under US protection. Even then, very doubtful. Navies are expensive. Vietnam and Indonesia are much more likely to have a more robust navy in the forseeable future, and other powers (Australia, Japan, India, China, not to mention USA) are almost certain to have a greater presence in SEA than the Phillipines.
@@MrLachlan1903 Philippines has always been the key to dominating South East Asia and indeed the Pacific. As it is today. The Spanish knew this, as did the Americans. Hence the largest U.S. base outside of the US in Subic Bay. In recent decades PH faded out of prominence but traditionally has been the main prize in South East Asia and the Pacific. Philippines resistance was the only one of consequence in Asia. The heaviest and most intense fighting was in Philippines, especially the Battle of Manila which was the Asian Stalingrad. They fought for the entirety of the war in resistance when the Australians capitulated in a matter of days against the Japanese leading to the demise of the British empire the defeat was so bad. Biggest naval battles in history were in the Philippine sea. Australia is new to the game in South East Asia hence the clueless commentary. USA has been there for over a century. Here’s Trump’s take on Philippines as a strategic location, which was the case during the war and going forward. ua-cam.com/video/Ss_V3HqwAoc/v-deo.htmlfeature=shared The major sea lanes are in Philippines waters not in any of those other places you have mentioned other than Indonesia, even then Indo is on the periphery.
@@chrisk7118 "Philippines has always been the key to dominating South East Asia and indeed the Pacific." This is a big claim, and there is not much to historically support it. Prior to european colonisation the Philippines as a political entity were not regionally influencial. The kernals of power in SEA have historically been focused in Cambodia, Myanmar, Sumatra, and Java. You make the claim that Spain colonized the Philippines to dominate the region but this is also not historically accurate, sources say that Spain conqured the Philippines for their own stake in the spice trade and to establish contacts with Japanese and Chinese traders, an influencial region but it's innacurate to say that's it's the centre of power in SEA, if this was the case we would have evidence of historical empires in the region with Filipino origins.
The Americans were late to the colonisation drive in SEA by European powers, simply because the US had it's influence there, and later became a great power, does not mean that possesstion of the Phillipines made it so or souly determined future US dominance in the region, they just got what was left and made the most of it.
There was heavy fighting in the Phillipines, but a heavy butchers bill does not equal its accomplishments in its size and scale. There have been battles which cause heavy casualties but end up being stratigically irrelevant. One recent example of this has been Bakhmut.
If the loss of Malaya was the death nail of the British Empire, then why was the loss of the Philippines NOT the end of the American empire? You are both asserting that Singapore was the reason, which is debatable. It certainly decimated British influence in the region but was certainly not it's death knell.
The biggest naval battle happened in Leyte Gulf true, but that's measured by the sheer tonnage of the Japanese battleships which were in the area and it was a hail mary suicidal mission by the Japanese, they had no real chance of changing the direction of the wat at that point and they were utterly destroyed. The region in which most arguably broke the back of the Japanese Empire was the Hawaiian Island chain at the battle of Midway. This is historical consensus.
A nation which is 'new to the game' does not mean anything. It's not an argument. Your youtube video simply has Trump say it's a strategic region, which is true. But so is Japan, Korea, Vietnam, Thailand and Australia. He did not say it was the key to the region at all which is what you claim.
If the SEA were a colection of regional powers with no or little influence from great powers the Philiipines would play second fiddle to Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, Japan, even Malaysia. It would be one of many chips and battlegrounds but it's definitely not the throne.
@@MrLachlan1903 From Australian Department of Veterans Affairs site. “The President of the United States ordered me to break through the Japanese lines and proceed from Corregidor to Australia for the purpose, as I understand it, of organising an American offensive against Japan, the primary purpose of which is the relief of the Philippines. I came through and I will return”. I talked to many diggers from that era who served in New Guinea / the Pacific and they all mentioned Philippines was known as the big theatre, with big coverage of Bataan and the Death March. This was on a scale of brutality much higher than any of the other countries you mentioned (other than China and Korea) who all rolled over and capitulated in comparison to the guerrilla movement in Philippines. Being the first country in Asia to lead a resistance against European powers it did not want to be colonized again. It may seem like a sideline to Australians from modern decades who did not live through the era cause PH has fallen into the background in recent decades, also because looking at the history they were relegated to the sidelines of the Pacific War taking irrelevant missions on which they almost mutinied for the lack of mission purpose towards the end of the Pacific war. Unfortunately MacArthur did not think much of Australian troops after their capitulation in Malaya and also wanted to give the glory to US troops. Philippines was the main prize in Asia up to the 1940’s, was the key catalyst for the formation of ASEAN and faded to the background only after internal turmoil in the 1970’s. But it is rising again. PH with only half the population of Indonesia but the only Christian country in Asia, Australia will find very little in common with a 200+ million Muslim population in Indonesia. anzacportal.dva.gov.au/wars-and-missions/world-war-ii-1939-1945/events/last-battles/return-philippines
@@chrisk7118 @chrisk7118 That quote supports my argument more than it does yours. You can see MacArthur was motivated by glory and his promise to return all the while it mentions that the Philippines was relegated to the sidelines, which is exactly my point. "Troops almost mutinied for lack of mission purpose." Such was the irrelevancy of that campaign in the ultimate goal of defeating Japan.
You also didn't refute any of my arguments.