Security Studies and Criminology

Question: Discuss about the Security Studies and Criminology. Answer: Introduction: From: the australian minister for defence To: members of the cabinet Date: 4th, september 2016 Re: sending navy ship/ vessel to perform freedom of navigation patrol in south china sea rol in the South China Sea should be based on various factors. Even though Australia responded towards American Patrol through declaration of support for freedom of navigation, the country is actually faced numerous strategic problems or challenges in long standing alliance and cooperation with United States together with the fact that it has strong interests in enhancing ties with China which is not only a rising global or international influence, but it is also Australias biggest trading partner. However, the position of this memo is that the Australia should indeed dispatch a Navy ship or vessel to perform a Freedom of Navigation Patrol in the South Sea China Sea because Australian Defense Forces have the capabilities of not only performing the Freedom of Navigation Patrol, but the Australian Army also has the ability of deploying some of the land combat forces to Syria (Carl von Clausewitz, 1984). I could therefore wish to refute to the allegations by some sections of the media w hich claimed that the planned military exercises with China had been suspended or delayed. Owing to the fact that the countrys Royal Australian Navy had a long history of involvement with other regional navies and indeed frequently carries out port exercises and visits to various countries including China, it is quite apparent that China is going to send out a Navy Vessel to perform a Navigation Patrol in the South East China Sea. I would therefore wish to categorically state here that the government of Australia is actually holding its options quite open for the future patrol operations. It should also be noted by all and sundry that Australia has a legal interest in maintaining stability and peace, respect for international or global law, freedom of navigation, unimpeded trade, and even over flight in South China Sea. Due to that, both Australian aircraft as well as vessels will thus go on exercising rights as stipulated under the international law of freedom of over flight and freedom of navigation. According to Peter Jennings who was a former assistant Secretary at the Department of Defense (Simpson, 2012). He asserted that it was not actually abnormal for Australia to carry out exercise in collaboration the China Republic. Australia as a country should ultimately consider carrying out a United States style freedom of navigation mission in the South China Sea during some stages. Australia should also possess crucial interest in the specific part of globe since two thirds of the countrys products usually travels via Chinas port. As a result, Australia should not actually take the issue of sending a Navy ship to carry out a Freedom of Navigation Patrol in the South Sea China. It is important to note that even though Australia can send a Navy ship or Vessel to conduct a Freedom of Navigation Patrol in the South Sea of China, it should take precautions so that it does not risk developing a cold war with the country (Hirst, 2014). In essence, Australia should urgently ensure that it safeguards its long-term strategic and economic interests. It can genuinely be asserted that the carrying out of navigation patrols by the United States within the 12 nautical miles of the Chinese claimed territory in the South C hina Sea is a fact sheet that summarizes the current position held by Australia about the navigation freedom operations and also spells out future options (Collins, 2002). Australia should quickly consider carrying out its own Freedom of Navigation Patrols (FONOPs) around the former Low Tide Elevations (LTEs) of signal so that it can signal its concerns. Upon being asked as to whether all the nations that had interest in the South China Sea should perform the US-Style FONOPs FONOPs within the 12 nautical miles zone of the Chinese-claimed islands on the 22nd of February 2016, Joseph Aucoin, the US Vice Admiral answered that it is up to such nations but it is upon their best interests to ensure that such seas remain open (Paret, 2016). He further asserted that it was valuable for Australia to carry out Freedom of navigation Operations. Australia ought to in the nearest future dispatch Navy Vessels aimed at carrying out Freedom of Navigation Patrols in South Sea of China based on various reasons. For instance, since the making of the initial FONOP by the United States in October of last year, the position that has been held by Australia is asserting its right to freedom of navigation through noting that Australian Navy vessels and aircrafts have sailed or flown in the South China Sea for numerous years (Holmes, 2016). Australia holds the view that all nations having a stake or interests in South China Sea should indeed make efforts aimed at avoiding any form of tensions in the area by ensuring that they act with the highest restraint. Australia will thus send Navy vessels and traverse any international waters based on international law. Australia highly believes in the freedom of navigation as one of the significant objectives. Australia will thus continue advocating for peaceful revolution of different claims regarding the South China Sea in accordance with the laid down international law without necessarily adding tensions in that region (Echevarria, 2016). In fact, the freedom of navigation activities or exercises should be matters for each individual nation. Australia should ensure that it sails peacefully and legally through the 12 mile limits of the South China Sea in accordance with international law. Australia should in the nearest future carryout a Freedom of Navigation Patrol in the South Sea China but ensure that it does never jeopardize the security interests and sovereignty of the China Republic. Australia, while conducting the freedom of navigation patrol along the South Sea China, should also not jeopardize the safety of facilities and personnel on reefs and destroy regional peace and stability (Hanson, 2009). It will not thus violate the appropriate Chinese law through entering its territorial seas without permission or authorization (Waldman, 2016). In thing about any war, Australia as a country will always ensure that it observes all the philosophies of war based on not only the political aspects, but also the Cataclysmic and Eschatological aspects. This is because war is actually similar to a game of strategy such as chase. In carrying out a Freedom of Navigation Patrol in the South Sea China, Australia should not necessarily go to war with the country; instead, it should comprehend the negative effects of starting a war with China. In one of the press conferences that was held with Julie Bishop, the Australian Foreign Minister on 17th of February 2016, Wangi Yi, the Chinese Foreign Minister urged China to ensure that it maintains the pledge of non-militarization while conducting a Freedom of Navigation in the South Sea of China. Chinese Foreign Minister further asserted that certainly, Non-Militarization was in the best interest of all concerned parties but it should not just be about one single entity or country (Fox Rossow, 2016). He asserted that non-militarization should not exercise double or multiple standards and appreciated the position of Australia regarding the South China Sea that it will not take sides but instead, it will advocate for peaceful solutions towards emerging disputes in the ar ea. Owing to the fact that Australia has numerous trade agreements with the Republic of China, Australia ought to send the Navy ship or Vessel to carry out a Freedom of Navigation Patrol in the South Sea China, but should not indulge in war with China (Linnemann, 2016). This is because both countries are part and parcel of the Asian Investment Bank and thus they have regular dialogue and contact. Any blow-up of negative activities in the South Sea China will result in poor economic and security issues in the entire region (Lim, 2016). On the other hand, Australia as a country should always think carefully about the issue of joining the US FONOPS. This is because joining the US in the FONOPs would not only be fraught with several risks, but it will also become extremely complex (Holsti, 2016). In order to demonstrate the interest of Australia in the Freedom of Navigation, Australia should send a Navy Vessel to the South Sea China. However, some critics have argued that there is need for Australia to join the United States FONOPs in South China Sea so as to save costs that it would incur if it indulges in the process alone. References Carl von Clausewitz, On War, ed. and trans. Michael Howard and Peter Paret (Princeton University Press, 1984 [1976]), pp. 75-132 (Book I, Chapters 1-8; Book II, Chap. 1) Collins, J. M. (2002). Military Strategy: principles, practices, and historical perspectives. Potomac Books, Inc.. Echevarria II, A. J. (2016). Rediscovering US Military Strategy: A Role for Doctrine. Journal of Strategic Studies, 39(2), 231-245. Fox, A. C., Rossow, A. J. (2016). Assessing Russian Hybrid Warfare: A Successful Tool For Limited War. Journal Article| August, 8(3), 39pm. Hanson, V. D. (2009). The western way of war: Infantry battle in classical Greece. Univ of California Press. Hirst, P. (2014). War and power in the twenty-first century: The state, military power and the international system. John Wiley Sons. Holmes, J.R., 2016. Is there an Asian way of maritime war?. Comparative Strategy, 35(1), pp.32-42. Holsti, K. (2016). On the Study of War. In Kalevi Holsti: Major Texts on War, the State, Peace, and International Order (pp. 5-25). Springer International Publishing. Lim, K. (2016). Big Data and Strategic Intelligence. Intelligence and National Security, 31(4), 619-635. Linnemann, M. R. A. (2016). Unconventional Art and Modern War. MILITARY REVIEW. Paret, P., 2016. On War Then and Now. Journal of Military History, 80(2). Simpson, E. (2012). War from the ground up: twenty-first century combat as politics. Oxford University Press. Waldman, T. (2016). War, Clausewitz and the Trinity. Routledge.