AustraliaEssay Preview: AustraliaReport this essayLocation: Oceania, continent between the Indian Ocean and the South Pacific OceanGeographic coordinates: 27 00 S, 133 00 EMap references: OceaniaArea: total: 7,686,850 sq kmland: 7,617,930 sq kmwater: 68,920 sq kmnote: includes Lord Howe Island and Macquarie IslandArea – comparative: slightly smaller than the US contiguous 48 statesLand boundaries: 0 kmCoastline: 25,760 kmMaritime claims: territorial sea: 12 nmcontiguous zone: 24 nmexclusive economic zone: 200 nmcontinental shelf: 200 nm or to the edge of the continental marginClimate: generally arid to semiarid; temperate in south and east; tropical in northTerrain: mostly low plateau with deserts; fertile plain in southeastElevation extremes: lowest point: Lake Eyre -15 mhighest point: Mount Kosciuszko 2,229 mNatural resources: bauxite, coal, iron ore, copper, tin, gold, silver, uranium, nickel, tungsten, mineral sands, lead, zinc, diamonds, natural gas, petroleum
The Australian government (Australia and New Zealand) have a long and complex history of support for the development of the Australian economy. Governments with long standing interests in regional and geographical issues, support for national interest interests and the creation of an Australian manufacturing base have often been associated with a belief in “the value of Australia” which can sometimes result in government support for particular policies and activities. However, Australia’s relationship will not necessarily fall on a bad side if there is a significant lack of support for any of these policies;
Australia will not seek an Australian-style national strategy for Australia as has been the case throughout much of the past, if not the entire past- century, in response to the growing economic, political and economic and cultural pressure on trade and investment from within the Commonwealth. (The current Australian government in particular has the ability to address and promote international relations issues because it has had the advantage of a large global community and the extensive support of its leaders)
Australia’s development policy, for instance, has been a failure. As I have argued much of the time in my own writings this is because the Australian response to this growing global crisis has been a failure. The Australian government has long been a party to the growing conflict between the international community and state capitals, to a growing variety of competing interests in Australia on many issues and to a growing number of individual regional and local governments. Its policy makers, both major parties, have accepted Australia’s needs more directly than most other developed European and Asian countries. Australian support for international development has increased markedly as well. But there have been changes as well based on the growing complexity of Australia’s current policies and the perceived importance of the international community in the national security and economic development of the region. For instance, many of Australia’s developed and developing countries are now members of NATO, who are not yet fully supportive of Australia in their international relations process (see Fora, M. 2003a ).
In the United States, this has made Australia a partner in the development of new strategic strategies, including the Strategic Defense Initiative ( SDR ) and Defense One (DE). The defense of Australia has been a priority of most of the Obama Administration, has been central to the President’s recent re-establishment of the Department of Defense, the national security advisor for international security at Secretary of State John Kerry since 2005 and the foreign policy director of the Defence Technology Group. The State Department also plays a significant role in Australia’s economic development and is a key supporter of Australia’s international alliances and national security interests. Under Presidents Obama and Kerry the State Department has been engaged in a number of ongoing meetings and talks with various government sectors in the United States, including the Strategic Economic Dialogue, and the State Department is involved in a number of business initiatives. The Defence Technology Group also was one of the major donors to the Sydney Conference, where Australian Government officials have attended and are visiting. The State Department has supported the development of Australian military forces in places such as the Central Intelligence Agency’s Western Australia base and is also engaged in international political initiatives.
Since 2001, at least half of all foreign military expenditure in Australia is directed towards Australian operations, and the bulk of the overseas military expenditure is directed towards defence and security projects, so this means Australia consistently has a commitment to Australian security but has at times responded to the international context or an Australia-specific approach to issues. The recent decision by the Turnbull government to increase military spending in 2009 to 3% of its current funding was a significant blow to this trend. Australian defence spending is more than twice as high as in any other major country on the continent, and is higher than the 5% share
The Australian government (Australia and New Zealand) have a long and complex history of support for the development of the Australian economy. Governments with long standing interests in regional and geographical issues, support for national interest interests and the creation of an Australian manufacturing base have often been associated with a belief in “the value of Australia” which can sometimes result in government support for particular policies and activities. However, Australia’s relationship will not necessarily fall on a bad side if there is a significant lack of support for any of these policies;
Australia will not seek an Australian-style national strategy for Australia as has been the case throughout much of the past, if not the entire past- century, in response to the growing economic, political and economic and cultural pressure on trade and investment from within the Commonwealth. (The current Australian government in particular has the ability to address and promote international relations issues because it has had the advantage of a large global community and the extensive support of its leaders)
Australia’s development policy, for instance, has been a failure. As I have argued much of the time in my own writings this is because the Australian response to this growing global crisis has been a failure. The Australian government has long been a party to the growing conflict between the international community and state capitals, to a growing variety of competing interests in Australia on many issues and to a growing number of individual regional and local governments. Its policy makers, both major parties, have accepted Australia’s needs more directly than most other developed European and Asian countries. Australian support for international development has increased markedly as well. But there have been changes as well based on the growing complexity of Australia’s current policies and the perceived importance of the international community in the national security and economic development of the region. For instance, many of Australia’s developed and developing countries are now members of NATO, who are not yet fully supportive of Australia in their international relations process (see Fora, M. 2003a ).
In the United States, this has made Australia a partner in the development of new strategic strategies, including the Strategic Defense Initiative ( SDR ) and Defense One (DE). The defense of Australia has been a priority of most of the Obama Administration, has been central to the President’s recent re-establishment of the Department of Defense, the national security advisor for international security at Secretary of State John Kerry since 2005 and the foreign policy director of the Defence Technology Group. The State Department also plays a significant role in Australia’s economic development and is a key supporter of Australia’s international alliances and national security interests. Under Presidents Obama and Kerry the State Department has been engaged in a number of ongoing meetings and talks with various government sectors in the United States, including the Strategic Economic Dialogue, and the State Department is involved in a number of business initiatives. The Defence Technology Group also was one of the major donors to the Sydney Conference, where Australian Government officials have attended and are visiting. The State Department has supported the development of Australian military forces in places such as the Central Intelligence Agency’s Western Australia base and is also engaged in international political initiatives.
Since 2001, at least half of all foreign military expenditure in Australia is directed towards Australian operations, and the bulk of the overseas military expenditure is directed towards defence and security projects, so this means Australia consistently has a commitment to Australian security but has at times responded to the international context or an Australia-specific approach to issues. The recent decision by the Turnbull government to increase military spending in 2009 to 3% of its current funding was a significant blow to this trend. Australian defence spending is more than twice as high as in any other major country on the continent, and is higher than the 5% share
The Australian government (Australia and New Zealand) have a long and complex history of support for the development of the Australian economy. Governments with long standing interests in regional and geographical issues, support for national interest interests and the creation of an Australian manufacturing base have often been associated with a belief in “the value of Australia” which can sometimes result in government support for particular policies and activities. However, Australia’s relationship will not necessarily fall on a bad side if there is a significant lack of support for any of these policies;
Australia will not seek an Australian-style national strategy for Australia as has been the case throughout much of the past, if not the entire past- century, in response to the growing economic, political and economic and cultural pressure on trade and investment from within the Commonwealth. (The current Australian government in particular has the ability to address and promote international relations issues because it has had the advantage of a large global community and the extensive support of its leaders)
Australia’s development policy, for instance, has been a failure. As I have argued much of the time in my own writings this is because the Australian response to this growing global crisis has been a failure. The Australian government has long been a party to the growing conflict between the international community and state capitals, to a growing variety of competing interests in Australia on many issues and to a growing number of individual regional and local governments. Its policy makers, both major parties, have accepted Australia’s needs more directly than most other developed European and Asian countries. Australian support for international development has increased markedly as well. But there have been changes as well based on the growing complexity of Australia’s current policies and the perceived importance of the international community in the national security and economic development of the region. For instance, many of Australia’s developed and developing countries are now members of NATO, who are not yet fully supportive of Australia in their international relations process (see Fora, M. 2003a ).
In the United States, this has made Australia a partner in the development of new strategic strategies, including the Strategic Defense Initiative ( SDR ) and Defense One (DE). The defense of Australia has been a priority of most of the Obama Administration, has been central to the President’s recent re-establishment of the Department of Defense, the national security advisor for international security at Secretary of State John Kerry since 2005 and the foreign policy director of the Defence Technology Group. The State Department also plays a significant role in Australia’s economic development and is a key supporter of Australia’s international alliances and national security interests. Under Presidents Obama and Kerry the State Department has been engaged in a number of ongoing meetings and talks with various government sectors in the United States, including the Strategic Economic Dialogue, and the State Department is involved in a number of business initiatives. The Defence Technology Group also was one of the major donors to the Sydney Conference, where Australian Government officials have attended and are visiting. The State Department has supported the development of Australian military forces in places such as the Central Intelligence Agency’s Western Australia base and is also engaged in international political initiatives.
Since 2001, at least half of all foreign military expenditure in Australia is directed towards Australian operations, and the bulk of the overseas military expenditure is directed towards defence and security projects, so this means Australia consistently has a commitment to Australian security but has at times responded to the international context or an Australia-specific approach to issues. The recent decision by the Turnbull government to increase military spending in 2009 to 3% of its current funding was a significant blow to this trend. Australian defence spending is more than twice as high as in any other major country on the continent, and is higher than the 5% share
Land use: arable land: 6.15% (includes about 27 million hectares of cultivated grassland)permanent crops: 0.04%other: 93.81% (2005)Irrigated land: 25,450 sq km (2003)Total renewable water resources: 398 cu km (1995)Freshwater withdrawal (domestic/industrial/agricultural): total: 24.06 cu km/yr (15%/10%/75%)per capita: 1,193