Now bin laden is dead is it time to reflect on the delinking of aid
POLS 253 Australian War Term Paper
1. qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmAustralia’s ‘The War against Terror’: participation and implications POLS 253: Current World Problems Del Lonowski 3/31/2010Julie Corcoran <br />Australia’s participation in the ‘War Against Terror’ may prove to debilitate their country, in the same way it has the United States. The country’s economy and their resource capacity to maintain the defensive strategy being used to aid the United States may be hurting them internally due to this drawn out affair overseas. Since the bombing of 9-11 in the United States, several countries came in to provide support for the American troops going to war. The risks that will come from close involvement with the United States have started to be a topic of discussion among military personnel and politicians in Australia. Although the country has the potential to continue a successful defense campaign, a slow withdrawal in the amount of defense aid, could prove to be a positive step in the future health of their country and, a focus towards internal goals to save their economy from suffering the same loses America has in the past 9 years.<br />The effects on Australia include a shift in ideology of policies and government legislation from a peace-keeping nation to one reflective of American war-motivated attitude. According to borderlands e-journal author K. Koo (2005, par. 4), the Bush administration has been the determinate in the ‘War on Terror’ and that is reflected in the neoconservative view. When understanding the world through a view such as this, key components of the stage, such as institutions and nations, achieve status of ‘true knowledge’, making it difficult to intervene or even disagree with the plan and purposes of the war efforts. Ultimately this has changed the way other nations view Australia, not to mentioned, changed their “way of doing business”. By being a key partner in this war effort the country has been giving a different path than would have been foreseen at the beginning of the war. <br />A current study done by Colonel Michael D. Slater of the Australian Army (An Analysis of Australia’s National Strategy in the War Against Terror, 2004), presents military spending and the national strategy to give an outlook of Australia’s future with continuing involvement in the war. The weight of these actions made to aid the ‘War Against Terror’ has heightened the risk of attacks on Australia and its regional neighbors. Due to a setback in decision making from Australia’s national strategy standpoint, the countries health is linked directly to American success (or failure) against international terrorism. In order for this relationship to be beneficial to Australia, the country assumes that any threats against Australian interest would be dependent upon a response by American political, economic and military powers.<br />As far as impacts sustained through the involvement, the current condition of the military is stable, but much has been provided to the United States over the past nine years. Initial contributions included 150 Special Air Services troops, two B707 tanker refueling aircraft, two P3 long-range maritime planes, two navy frigates, and one amphibious command ship (Australia joins war on terror, 2001).<br />According to the CIA World Factbook (military, 2010) the Australia’s military forces consists of the Australian Defense Force (ADF), Australian Army, Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Air Force, and Special Operations Command. The military service age for citizens is 17 years of age for voluntary military service. Women can serve in Army non-combat support roles. Military expenditures in 2006 were 2.4% of GDP and the country’s spending comparatively to the rest of the world was ranked 69th. In 2008, Australia reported that manpower available for military service for males ages 16-49 was 4,999,988, for Females of the same ages was 4, 870,043. <br />Colonel Slater states in his research that (pg. 9 par. 1) the beginning of Australia’s federal governments national strategy against terrorism was signaled with the ANZUS treaty between their nation and the United States in 2001. To declare an end to this effort, the government outlined goals as being: “ensure a secure environment for Australians citizens, contain international terrorism, and prevent access to weapons of mass destruction by terrorist organizations or rogue states.” (pg. 10 par. 2) In the beginning of their campaign and early build up, the Australian Government expressed what would be its political exit strategy from the war. Only would the government engage in the ground war until Iraq was disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. There was no intention on committing many years to the United States or its long term military occupation of Iraq, even though the government provided a considerable contribution to civil restoration including political and economic freedom and improve human rights for Iraqi people.<br />Australia’s economy has been fruitful in the past and followed many of the same trends that other developed nations have in reaching a greater economic success. According to the CIA World Factbook (Australia, 2010): Australia’s economy: per capita GDP is on par with the four dominant West European economies. Key factors: 17-year economic expansion include reforms, low inflation, a housing market boom and increased ties with China. “This growth ended with the recent global financial crisis. Drought, robust import demand, and a strong currency pushed the trade deficit up. The economy fared relatively well during the global financial crisis, narrowly avoiding a technical recession because of monetary and fiscal stimulus, buoyant export demand and investment from China, and the strong health of Australia's banking sector. In 2010, the government will focus on raising Australia's economic productivity, and managing the symbiotic, but sometimes tense, economic relationship with China.”<br />Current issues involving refugee camps and immigration into Australia are in an uproar as the nation and its neighbors try to set up systems to improve the conditions of these individuals, many being displaced by the war itself. A great decline in the women’s rights programs and efforts has also been a problem since the government began focusing so much for so long towards terrorism. The relationships with other nations is also affected by the maintained alliance with the United States, which seems to only gain a decreasing amount of support from neighbor nations.<br />K. Koo of borderlands e-journal also discusses how it is suggested that the nation is insecure because of the conflict overseas and the problem with asylum-seekers as policy makers of the Australian government are displaying in-action. The war in Iraq is giving the perception of a ‘Forward Defense’ because of the amount of time Australia has been present. In the past the weakness of borders was directed towards only the potentially threatening occurrences, but now, the mindset is set on capturing and further deterring attempts to claim asylum within the country. <br />(Slater, pg. 10 pr. 1) Prime Minister Howard’s proclamation that “Australia’s commitment beside the United States in the war against terror will remain strong and steadfast” has led the country on a course parallel to the US; a course that is out of step with most of Australia’s traditional friends in the international community. This proclamation, while not an outright rejection of international opinion, is clearly a strong message from Australia that it is prepared to be out of step with most members of the international community. This community, while supportive of the war on terror, has generally believed America and her allies have acted at times without legitimacy in prosecuting the war on terror.<br />Australia has always sought to be self-reliant in its national security needs, and this was reinforced in the Defense White Paper 2000. Complementing Australia’s approach to self-reliance, successive governments have maintained strong defense relationships with several countries; none stronger than the relationship with the United States. The Australian Parliament has established bi-partisan agreement for keeping its alliance with the Unites States as the framework that supports defense self-reliance. This foreign policy and security strategy has been communicated internationally in the most recent Defense White Paper that stated, “There is strong support for the US alliance and the majority view is that we [Australia] should strive for as much self-reliance as possible within the context of the alliance.” (Slater pg. 14, par. 1)<br />Colonel Slater (pg 9, par. 3) discusses the effects of this ‘war’ on Australia’s relation with its neighbors. Evidence of diplomatic tension inversely reflective of Australia’s increased commitment to support President Bush’s campaign into Iraq. Micheal Thawley of the heritage foundation argues in his article (Australia’s continuing role in the War on Terrorism, 2004) for continuing involvement, that it is necessary for Australia given the position they are in not only globally but politically. “Living where we do, we have some special concerns and special responsibilities. We are in a part of the world, unlike Europe, where the strategic balance is still evolving. We live near countries where terrorist groups linked with al-Qaeda have found haven--as we learned to our grief in Bali.<br />So we have made a special effort to assist Southeast Asian and Pacific countries to develop capabilities in the many areas necessary to withstand and defeat terrorism. We have worked very closely with Indonesia, building on our support for the successful investigation of the Bali attack, which resulted in 33 convictions. We have jointly chaired with Indonesia conferences to promote regional cooperation in counter-terrorism.”<br />Indonesian President, Megawati Soekarnoputri, (Slater, pg. 9, par. 3) in an address to the United Nations 11 months after the Bali bombing, stated that she was further distancing her government from Washington and Canberra in the war on terrorism. As the head of the world’s largest Muslim state, she condemned Muslims who espouse terrorism, but emphasized that world leaders should focus on the causes of the problems that produce terrorists and not necessarily the terrorists individually. <br />A feminist article (Phillips, 2008) about Australia’s condition discuss the impact on women’s rights and improvement programs within the country (which have currently declined with focus on the war states) and comments,<br />“Australia's recent emphasis on national security exists in conjunction with wider issues that characterize conservative governance. The unfolding response to recent acts of terrorism spawned a nationally sanctioned fear about anyone identified as Middle-Eastern and/or Islamic. This fear has given voice to new discourses about racism in the wider Australian community and has had the effect of complicating media, political and social reactions to violence within Australia as well as formally sanctioning the systemic oppression of Middle Eastern and other peoples from Islamic states who may be seeking security or even ‘enjoying’ safety within our shores.” Declines in social development relating to women’s rights, racism, and religious acceptance have all been changed by the drawn out interaction in Iraq. <br />To conclude the current problem at hand, it must be understood that, while Australia continues to ally with the U.S. linked issues continue to be brought to light as a decline in major socio-economic and human rights focus is lacking while government policies and legislation work at national security issues. <br />It should be proposed by the Australian government that in light of the currently increasing amount of refugees, declining economic stability, declining promotion of women’s right concerns, and the turmoil among neighboring nations and other allies (besides the United States) that the defense budget be decreased and the amount decreased be put into internal issues and stability to insure Australia does not suffer such a economic failure as the United States has. Troop should be brought home and Australia should set clear exit strategies, as well as a new outlined alliance relationship with the U.S., not to completely disregard aiding them, but to have guidelines as to how much and how long their partnership will be supported. Funds should increase in areas of refugee improvement programs to insure that those in the country now and the possible number of refugees in the future can be given good living conditions. Funds taken from defense should also go back into awareness of women’s rights and programs supporting them. The exit strategy should include additional funding to troops upon coming home to give incentive for staying within the country and promoting human rights issues within Australia’s borders. The soldiers brought home should also be giving the option of participating in improving refugee protection. Alliances with other nations cannot be funded, per say, since you cannot “buy” trust and understanding, but with these mentioned steps, Australia will gain a respect from other nations in not ‘holding hands’ with America’s decisions, which can seem to foreign nations impulsive and misdirected. <br />Bibliography<br />(2001, October 17). Australia joins war on terror. BBC News, Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1603660.stm <br />Australia-Oceania :: Australia . ( 2010). In CIA The World Factbook. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html <br />Koo, K. L. (2005, ). Terror Australis: Security, Australia and the 'War on Terror' Discourse. Borderlands e-journal, Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol4no1_2005/leekoo_terror.htm <br />Phillips, R. (2008, ). Feminism, policy and women's safety during Australia's ‘war on terror’. Feminist Review, 89, 18. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from ebscohost database.<br />Slater, M. D. (2004, May 3). An Analysis of Australia’s National Strategy in the War Against Terror. U.S. Army War College,Carlisle Barracks,Carlisle,PA,17013-5050, Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA424182&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf <br />Thawley, M. (2004, March 31). Australia's Continuing Role in the War on Terrorism. The heritage foundation, Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Australias-Continuing-Role-in-the-War-on-Terrorism<br />
![qwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmrtyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmqwertyuiopasdfghjklzxcvbnmAustralia’s ‘The War against Terror’: participation and implications POLS 253: Current World Problems Del Lonowski 3/31/2010Julie Corcoran <br />Australia’s participation in the ‘War Against Terror’ may prove to debilitate their country, in the same way it has the United States. The country’s economy and their resource capacity to maintain the defensive strategy being used to aid the United States may be hurting them internally due to this drawn out affair overseas. Since the bombing of 9-11 in the United States, several countries came in to provide support for the American troops going to war. The risks that will come from close involvement with the United States have started to be a topic of discussion among military personnel and politicians in Australia. Although the country has the potential to continue a successful defense campaign, a slow withdrawal in the amount of defense aid, could prove to be a positive step in the future health of their country and, a focus towards internal goals to save their economy from suffering the same loses America has in the past 9 years.<br />The effects on Australia include a shift in ideology of policies and government legislation from a peace-keeping nation to one reflective of American war-motivated attitude. According to borderlands e-journal author K. Koo (2005, par. 4), the Bush administration has been the determinate in the ‘War on Terror’ and that is reflected in the neoconservative view. When understanding the world through a view such as this, key components of the stage, such as institutions and nations, achieve status of ‘true knowledge’, making it difficult to intervene or even disagree with the plan and purposes of the war efforts. Ultimately this has changed the way other nations view Australia, not to mentioned, changed their “way of doing business”. By being a key partner in this war effort the country has been giving a different path than would have been foreseen at the beginning of the war. <br />A current study done by Colonel Michael D. Slater of the Australian Army (An Analysis of Australia’s National Strategy in the War Against Terror, 2004), presents military spending and the national strategy to give an outlook of Australia’s future with continuing involvement in the war. The weight of these actions made to aid the ‘War Against Terror’ has heightened the risk of attacks on Australia and its regional neighbors. Due to a setback in decision making from Australia’s national strategy standpoint, the countries health is linked directly to American success (or failure) against international terrorism. In order for this relationship to be beneficial to Australia, the country assumes that any threats against Australian interest would be dependent upon a response by American political, economic and military powers.<br />As far as impacts sustained through the involvement, the current condition of the military is stable, but much has been provided to the United States over the past nine years. Initial contributions included 150 Special Air Services troops, two B707 tanker refueling aircraft, two P3 long-range maritime planes, two navy frigates, and one amphibious command ship (Australia joins war on terror, 2001).<br />According to the CIA World Factbook (military, 2010) the Australia’s military forces consists of the Australian Defense Force (ADF), Australian Army, Royal Australian Navy, Royal Australian Air Force, and Special Operations Command. The military service age for citizens is 17 years of age for voluntary military service. Women can serve in Army non-combat support roles. Military expenditures in 2006 were 2.4% of GDP and the country’s spending comparatively to the rest of the world was ranked 69th. In 2008, Australia reported that manpower available for military service for males ages 16-49 was 4,999,988, for Females of the same ages was 4, 870,043. <br />Colonel Slater states in his research that (pg. 9 par. 1) the beginning of Australia’s federal governments national strategy against terrorism was signaled with the ANZUS treaty between their nation and the United States in 2001. To declare an end to this effort, the government outlined goals as being: “ensure a secure environment for Australians citizens, contain international terrorism, and prevent access to weapons of mass destruction by terrorist organizations or rogue states.” (pg. 10 par. 2) In the beginning of their campaign and early build up, the Australian Government expressed what would be its political exit strategy from the war. Only would the government engage in the ground war until Iraq was disarmed of weapons of mass destruction. There was no intention on committing many years to the United States or its long term military occupation of Iraq, even though the government provided a considerable contribution to civil restoration including political and economic freedom and improve human rights for Iraqi people.<br />Australia’s economy has been fruitful in the past and followed many of the same trends that other developed nations have in reaching a greater economic success. According to the CIA World Factbook (Australia, 2010): Australia’s economy: per capita GDP is on par with the four dominant West European economies. Key factors: 17-year economic expansion include reforms, low inflation, a housing market boom and increased ties with China. “This growth ended with the recent global financial crisis. Drought, robust import demand, and a strong currency pushed the trade deficit up. The economy fared relatively well during the global financial crisis, narrowly avoiding a technical recession because of monetary and fiscal stimulus, buoyant export demand and investment from China, and the strong health of Australia's banking sector. In 2010, the government will focus on raising Australia's economic productivity, and managing the symbiotic, but sometimes tense, economic relationship with China.”<br />Current issues involving refugee camps and immigration into Australia are in an uproar as the nation and its neighbors try to set up systems to improve the conditions of these individuals, many being displaced by the war itself. A great decline in the women’s rights programs and efforts has also been a problem since the government began focusing so much for so long towards terrorism. The relationships with other nations is also affected by the maintained alliance with the United States, which seems to only gain a decreasing amount of support from neighbor nations.<br />K. Koo of borderlands e-journal also discusses how it is suggested that the nation is insecure because of the conflict overseas and the problem with asylum-seekers as policy makers of the Australian government are displaying in-action. The war in Iraq is giving the perception of a ‘Forward Defense’ because of the amount of time Australia has been present. In the past the weakness of borders was directed towards only the potentially threatening occurrences, but now, the mindset is set on capturing and further deterring attempts to claim asylum within the country. <br />(Slater, pg. 10 pr. 1) Prime Minister Howard’s proclamation that “Australia’s commitment beside the United States in the war against terror will remain strong and steadfast” has led the country on a course parallel to the US; a course that is out of step with most of Australia’s traditional friends in the international community. This proclamation, while not an outright rejection of international opinion, is clearly a strong message from Australia that it is prepared to be out of step with most members of the international community. This community, while supportive of the war on terror, has generally believed America and her allies have acted at times without legitimacy in prosecuting the war on terror.<br />Australia has always sought to be self-reliant in its national security needs, and this was reinforced in the Defense White Paper 2000. Complementing Australia’s approach to self-reliance, successive governments have maintained strong defense relationships with several countries; none stronger than the relationship with the United States. The Australian Parliament has established bi-partisan agreement for keeping its alliance with the Unites States as the framework that supports defense self-reliance. This foreign policy and security strategy has been communicated internationally in the most recent Defense White Paper that stated, “There is strong support for the US alliance and the majority view is that we [Australia] should strive for as much self-reliance as possible within the context of the alliance.” (Slater pg. 14, par. 1)<br />Colonel Slater (pg 9, par. 3) discusses the effects of this ‘war’ on Australia’s relation with its neighbors. Evidence of diplomatic tension inversely reflective of Australia’s increased commitment to support President Bush’s campaign into Iraq. Micheal Thawley of the heritage foundation argues in his article (Australia’s continuing role in the War on Terrorism, 2004) for continuing involvement, that it is necessary for Australia given the position they are in not only globally but politically. “Living where we do, we have some special concerns and special responsibilities. We are in a part of the world, unlike Europe, where the strategic balance is still evolving. We live near countries where terrorist groups linked with al-Qaeda have found haven--as we learned to our grief in Bali.<br />So we have made a special effort to assist Southeast Asian and Pacific countries to develop capabilities in the many areas necessary to withstand and defeat terrorism. We have worked very closely with Indonesia, building on our support for the successful investigation of the Bali attack, which resulted in 33 convictions. We have jointly chaired with Indonesia conferences to promote regional cooperation in counter-terrorism.”<br />Indonesian President, Megawati Soekarnoputri, (Slater, pg. 9, par. 3) in an address to the United Nations 11 months after the Bali bombing, stated that she was further distancing her government from Washington and Canberra in the war on terrorism. As the head of the world’s largest Muslim state, she condemned Muslims who espouse terrorism, but emphasized that world leaders should focus on the causes of the problems that produce terrorists and not necessarily the terrorists individually. <br />A feminist article (Phillips, 2008) about Australia’s condition discuss the impact on women’s rights and improvement programs within the country (which have currently declined with focus on the war states) and comments,<br />“Australia's recent emphasis on national security exists in conjunction with wider issues that characterize conservative governance. The unfolding response to recent acts of terrorism spawned a nationally sanctioned fear about anyone identified as Middle-Eastern and/or Islamic. This fear has given voice to new discourses about racism in the wider Australian community and has had the effect of complicating media, political and social reactions to violence within Australia as well as formally sanctioning the systemic oppression of Middle Eastern and other peoples from Islamic states who may be seeking security or even ‘enjoying’ safety within our shores.” Declines in social development relating to women’s rights, racism, and religious acceptance have all been changed by the drawn out interaction in Iraq. <br />To conclude the current problem at hand, it must be understood that, while Australia continues to ally with the U.S. linked issues continue to be brought to light as a decline in major socio-economic and human rights focus is lacking while government policies and legislation work at national security issues. <br />It should be proposed by the Australian government that in light of the currently increasing amount of refugees, declining economic stability, declining promotion of women’s right concerns, and the turmoil among neighboring nations and other allies (besides the United States) that the defense budget be decreased and the amount decreased be put into internal issues and stability to insure Australia does not suffer such a economic failure as the United States has. Troop should be brought home and Australia should set clear exit strategies, as well as a new outlined alliance relationship with the U.S., not to completely disregard aiding them, but to have guidelines as to how much and how long their partnership will be supported. Funds should increase in areas of refugee improvement programs to insure that those in the country now and the possible number of refugees in the future can be given good living conditions. Funds taken from defense should also go back into awareness of women’s rights and programs supporting them. The exit strategy should include additional funding to troops upon coming home to give incentive for staying within the country and promoting human rights issues within Australia’s borders. The soldiers brought home should also be giving the option of participating in improving refugee protection. Alliances with other nations cannot be funded, per say, since you cannot “buy” trust and understanding, but with these mentioned steps, Australia will gain a respect from other nations in not ‘holding hands’ with America’s decisions, which can seem to foreign nations impulsive and misdirected. <br />Bibliography<br />(2001, October 17). Australia joins war on terror. BBC News, Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/1603660.stm <br />Australia-Oceania :: Australia . ( 2010). In CIA The World Factbook. Retrieved March 9, 2010, from https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/geos/as.html <br />Koo, K. L. (2005, ). Terror Australis: Security, Australia and the 'War on Terror' Discourse. Borderlands e-journal, Retrieved March 9, 2010, from http://www.borderlands.net.au/vol4no1_2005/leekoo_terror.htm <br />Phillips, R. (2008, ). Feminism, policy and women's safety during Australia's ‘war on terror’. Feminist Review, 89, 18. Retrieved March 6, 2010, from ebscohost database.<br />Slater, M. D. (2004, May 3). An Analysis of Australia’s National Strategy in the War Against Terror. U.S. Army War College,Carlisle Barracks,Carlisle,PA,17013-5050, Retrieved March 8, 2010, from http://www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA424182&Location=U2&doc=GetTRDoc.pdf <br />Thawley, M. (2004, March 31). Australia's Continuing Role in the War on Terrorism. The heritage foundation, Retrieved March 7, 2010, from http://www.heritage.org/Research/Lecture/Australias-Continuing-Role-in-the-War-on-Terrorism<br />](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/australiatermpaper-12716246408788-phpapp02/85/pols-253-australian-war-term-paper-1-320.jpg)
