| Srl | Item |
| 1 |
ID:
191827
|
|
|
|
|
| Summary/Abstract |
The AUKUS agreement to facilitate Australia's acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines has been described by its critics as a ‘bet' on the U.S. This bet entails serious risks for Australia. These risks include uncertainty around construction of the submarines; uncertainty around the U.S.'s long-term commitment to the region; and uncertainty about the future political trajectory of the U.S. These risks are compounded by the sovereignty-constraining implications of AUKUS. The reliance on U.S. technical expertise, and the demands of military interoperability, will bind Australian defence policy more closely to the U.S. than ever. Hence, AUKUS is a deal that demands close scrutiny. This article contributes to such scrutiny, exploring the risks associated with this bet on the U.S. In particular, it examines the ‘America’ that Australian governments expressly want – a liberal internationalist America with a strong commitment to democracy – and then contrasts this with the America that Australia does not want but may well get: an illiberal America that is increasingly anti-democratic at home and crudely transactional, protectionist and undiplomatic abroad. The obvious problem with this approach, we argue, is that Australia does not get to choose the presidential administration in the U.S. over the next twenty to forty years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| 2 |
ID:
127356
|
|
|
|
|
| Publication |
2014.
|
| Summary/Abstract |
Allwars produce their own lessons, but fewwars yield a consensus as towhat those lessons should be. So it is with America's 2003 invasion of Iraq. The immediate consensus surrounding this conflict was that the war was mismanaged and poorly prosecuted. There has been no shortage of books documenting the folly of the Bush administration in this regard.1 Such books often focus on the alleged architects of the Iraq War, from George W. Bush and Dick Cheney to the much maligned neoconservative intellectuals huddled around the Project for a New American Century and writing for the Weekly Standard and Commentary.2 As time has passed, however, there has been a growing body of literature seeking to explain the deeper roots of America's involvement in Iraq. Intellectuals have gone beyond the earliest justifications offered by the Bush administration,which tended to centre on Iraq's quest forweapons ofmass destruction and its alleged ties to terrorist groups. In this burgeoning literature, President Bush, Vice-President Cheney and the neocons are no longer presented as the sole 'villains' of the Iraq War.3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|