What do you think?
Rate this book
Girt by Sea: Re-Imagining Australia's Security
A clear-eyed examination of how Australia should approach the complex security challenges at play in its maritime domain
Security starts at home ...
Australia has drawn closer to many of its Asia-Pacific neighbours in recent years, but 'when push comes to shove, it continues to look well beyond the oceans and regions that surround it to the distant horizons of Europe and North America for its ultimate security guarantee'.
In Girt by Sea, international-relations experts Rebecca Strating and Joanne Wallis instead turn their gazes to Australia's near region, focusing on the six maritime domains central to its national the north seas (the Timor, Arafura and Coral Seas and the Torres Strait), the Western Pacific, the South China Sea, the South Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Southern Ocean.
In so doing, they reimagine how Australia should understand its strategic challenges and find lasting security.
Security starts at home ...
Australia has drawn closer to many of its Asia-Pacific neighbours in recent years, but 'when push comes to shove, it continues to look well beyond the oceans and regions that surround it to the distant horizons of Europe and North America for its ultimate security guarantee'.
In Girt by Sea, international-relations experts Rebecca Strating and Joanne Wallis instead turn their gazes to Australia's near region, focusing on the six maritime domains central to its national the north seas (the Timor, Arafura and Coral Seas and the Torres Strait), the Western Pacific, the South China Sea, the South Pacific, the Indian Ocean and the Southern Ocean.
In so doing, they reimagine how Australia should understand its strategic challenges and find lasting security.
381 pages, Kindle Edition
Published April 3, 2024
11 people are currently reading
65 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews
October 24, 2024
Girt by Sea brings a new perspective to the debate on Australia's security with an explicit focus on the oceans surrounding Australia. However, I have mixed feeling about this book.
On the one hand the authors clearly identify how Australia could improve its defence and foreign policies, with each chapter containing a sub-heading suggesting ways that Australia could do better. Yet, while pointing out Australia's failure of strategic imagination in pivoting for an increasingly likely future where China is the leading power in the Asia-Pacific region, the authors' suggestions still stay within the paradigm of continued US pre-eminence in the region.
I'm not sure whether the authors intended the irony when they discussed the Australian policy of pursuing 'self-reliance within the context of the US Alliance' and then, within the same paragraph, point out that the AUKUS partnership will make Australian security 'inextricably reliant' on the US. Either way, this paradox, as many other commentators have pointed out, is central to Australian foreign and defence policy. But this central paradox doesn't really get discussed in how Australia could do better. It is simply mentioned, but not addressed.
I enjoyed the discussion about Australia's role in upholding a 'rules-based order'. The nuance of the arguments was interesting. The book explains that like the US, China is an 'exceptionalist' power (only follows the rules it wants to - e.g. US has not ratified UNCLOS). Similarly, the book examines Australia's history of only following the rules it wants. China often points out Australia's hypocrisy in condemning China's behaviour in the South China Sea while at the same time refusing to negotiate boundaries with the Timorese. I find it interesting that, despite this behaviour, Australia is never labelled an a 'exceptionalist' power. Perhaps this label is only applied to the exceptionally powerful or the exceptionally rogue nations.
So the question arises, what exactly does Australia mean by a 'rules-based order'? The term was used 56 times in the 2016 Defence White Paper, and it continues to be used incessantly. The book doesn't explicitly answer this, but the implication is that like China and the US, Australia will follow whatever rules are most convenient in facilitating Australia's security with the help of a great protector, such as the US.
On the one hand the authors clearly identify how Australia could improve its defence and foreign policies, with each chapter containing a sub-heading suggesting ways that Australia could do better. Yet, while pointing out Australia's failure of strategic imagination in pivoting for an increasingly likely future where China is the leading power in the Asia-Pacific region, the authors' suggestions still stay within the paradigm of continued US pre-eminence in the region.
I'm not sure whether the authors intended the irony when they discussed the Australian policy of pursuing 'self-reliance within the context of the US Alliance' and then, within the same paragraph, point out that the AUKUS partnership will make Australian security 'inextricably reliant' on the US. Either way, this paradox, as many other commentators have pointed out, is central to Australian foreign and defence policy. But this central paradox doesn't really get discussed in how Australia could do better. It is simply mentioned, but not addressed.
I enjoyed the discussion about Australia's role in upholding a 'rules-based order'. The nuance of the arguments was interesting. The book explains that like the US, China is an 'exceptionalist' power (only follows the rules it wants to - e.g. US has not ratified UNCLOS). Similarly, the book examines Australia's history of only following the rules it wants. China often points out Australia's hypocrisy in condemning China's behaviour in the South China Sea while at the same time refusing to negotiate boundaries with the Timorese. I find it interesting that, despite this behaviour, Australia is never labelled an a 'exceptionalist' power. Perhaps this label is only applied to the exceptionally powerful or the exceptionally rogue nations.
So the question arises, what exactly does Australia mean by a 'rules-based order'? The term was used 56 times in the 2016 Defence White Paper, and it continues to be used incessantly. The book doesn't explicitly answer this, but the implication is that like China and the US, Australia will follow whatever rules are most convenient in facilitating Australia's security with the help of a great protector, such as the US.
April 14, 2024
I’ll be frank – Girt By Sea is a frustrating read. It’s an important and useful book, but I was hoping for something a little more…hmm, what’s the right word…
Here’s the thing. We’re facing immediate existential threats to global human civilisation from end-stage capitalism and climate change. In a few years the tipping points will turn into a record-breaking domino chain, after which we’ll be eating human flesh and drinking from puddles, yet we’re being assured by our politicians and Murdoch’s minions that the keys to our security are nuclear subs and ‘containing’ China.
I get it – China is run by the world’s largest totalitarian government, and they rely on total censorship, social-credit fascism, ever-increasing outward-facing nationalism, expansionist control of resources, and a ballooning military. They could flick a few switches and we’d be shut down as a national economy when the net goes dark and our utilities suddenly aren’t there any more.
But who else does that sound like? The US? Russia? Israel?
Every government is corrupt and violent, ours included; the only difference is the extent and style of that corruption and violence.
But those who believe the only way we can preserve our God-given right to endless consumerism is to spend all the money we have on nuclear subs and F35’s which…[checks notes]…still can’t fly or shoot straight in rainy weather, are also the people who say the only way we can ‘save the planet’ is to ensure unregulated capitalism gives all our remaining money to the billionaires so the ‘trickle-down’ allows us mere mortals to crowd-fund a cage or two for the last koalas.
Girt By Sea is written well by academic authors who freely admit they’re ‘insiders’; professionals within the ‘Australian national security community’. And, because they’re insiders, and highly qualified researchers, their insights are worth hearing. Their suggestions about how ‘the security community’ might better proceed in directing our nation toward some safe, stable state – free of the sort of nasty totalitarian control the Tibetans, Uygurs and poor bloody Hong Kongers are stuck with, are reasonable – even if Stratling and Wallis use the most mild and anodyne phrasing to put that across. They take care that no one in their community, no matter how rabidly inclined to check under their beds for Chinese assassins, need be made to feel discomforted by their measured critiques.
‘Angry’! That’s the word I was after. Anger. Absolute fury, in fact.
Instead of being livid that corrupt grifters stuck us with rubbish like AUKUS, then quickly found ways to ditch politics and suckle the myriad teats of that particular flying pig, Stratling and Wallis sound only mild caution.
We apparently only need to bridge the ‘institutional and ideological gaps’ between the Department of Defence and DFAT. We need to ‘expand [our] imaginations and ambitions, and be cautious about the roadblocks’. We need to ‘reflect on our assumptions’ about security.
Instead of tearing our corrupt, belligerent, patriarchal, neoliberal, Anglo post-colonial ruling ideologies a new arsehole, Stratling and Wallis urge us to accept ‘broader notions’ of what security means, take an intersectional approach to the diversity of Australians, coordinate Statecraft with other departments, be a ‘better regional partner’, think about how climate relates to it all, accept the possibility that our regional neighbours might actually be worth listening to, and to change our current concept of ‘foreign aid’ from giving money to Australian companies so they can profit more efficiently from whatever nation they’re extracting profits from, and instead work with other nations to create genuine understanding, even friendship, without expecting anything for it.
See? It’s all very reasonable. Worth discussing over tea and a biscuit while we try to ignore Peter Dutton in the background, red-faced and spitting, wearing a Trump wig and comparing anti-war demonstrators to mass murderers. Stratling and Wallis even suggest…well, ‘suggest’ is a bit strong, but they imply we might think about considering the possibility that AUKUS may pose one or two issues that, over time, we could perhaps talk about. Or have an inquiry or report or some-such. A report that could, for example, be written by experts and insiders in the Australian national security commu…oh, wait.
This was Stratling and Wallis’ chance to lay bare the post-colonial lies and capitalist extortion of our peoples, our nation and our environment. Instead, in the nicest possible way, they avoid any of that to imply, to hint, to gently suggest that we, or those special elite who occupy the lofty realms of the Australian national security community, could perhaps better lead us to that glorious, safe, secure, cosy future, one where we aren’t trading body parts for medicine or forming mobs with which to storm the bunkers of billionaires and eat them.
So, to summarise – well written, well reasoned academic book, with a good, broad scope of inquiry in ‘re-imagining’ Australia’s security. The only thing missing, for me, is a couple of blood-dripping machetes and the dismembered corpses of Murdoch minions and political grifters who think nothing of cheating Timor Leste for an oil company, lying about weapons of mass destruction that don’t exist, imprisoning refugees, backing genocidal Israeli theocrats, or doing rotten deals that soak us for billions while quietly setting up cushy jobs for their post-political careers.
After setting up AUKUS, Scott Morrison waited exactly 18 months, the time legally required before private employment in the AUKUS arms industry was allowed, before he resigned and got a job in the AUKUS arms industry.
I wanted someone else, an insider, to expose and share that visceral anger. Instead I was advised to ‘re-imagine’ Australia’s security. To the authors, I can assure them that I, and every other spec-fic novelist, has indeed imagined our future, and I regret to tell you that a slightly less vicious, slightly more inclusive, business-as-usual model isn’t going to do it.
[Disclosure: this review was published in the Tasmanian Times]
Here’s the thing. We’re facing immediate existential threats to global human civilisation from end-stage capitalism and climate change. In a few years the tipping points will turn into a record-breaking domino chain, after which we’ll be eating human flesh and drinking from puddles, yet we’re being assured by our politicians and Murdoch’s minions that the keys to our security are nuclear subs and ‘containing’ China.
I get it – China is run by the world’s largest totalitarian government, and they rely on total censorship, social-credit fascism, ever-increasing outward-facing nationalism, expansionist control of resources, and a ballooning military. They could flick a few switches and we’d be shut down as a national economy when the net goes dark and our utilities suddenly aren’t there any more.
But who else does that sound like? The US? Russia? Israel?
Every government is corrupt and violent, ours included; the only difference is the extent and style of that corruption and violence.
But those who believe the only way we can preserve our God-given right to endless consumerism is to spend all the money we have on nuclear subs and F35’s which…[checks notes]…still can’t fly or shoot straight in rainy weather, are also the people who say the only way we can ‘save the planet’ is to ensure unregulated capitalism gives all our remaining money to the billionaires so the ‘trickle-down’ allows us mere mortals to crowd-fund a cage or two for the last koalas.
Girt By Sea is written well by academic authors who freely admit they’re ‘insiders’; professionals within the ‘Australian national security community’. And, because they’re insiders, and highly qualified researchers, their insights are worth hearing. Their suggestions about how ‘the security community’ might better proceed in directing our nation toward some safe, stable state – free of the sort of nasty totalitarian control the Tibetans, Uygurs and poor bloody Hong Kongers are stuck with, are reasonable – even if Stratling and Wallis use the most mild and anodyne phrasing to put that across. They take care that no one in their community, no matter how rabidly inclined to check under their beds for Chinese assassins, need be made to feel discomforted by their measured critiques.
‘Angry’! That’s the word I was after. Anger. Absolute fury, in fact.
Instead of being livid that corrupt grifters stuck us with rubbish like AUKUS, then quickly found ways to ditch politics and suckle the myriad teats of that particular flying pig, Stratling and Wallis sound only mild caution.
We apparently only need to bridge the ‘institutional and ideological gaps’ between the Department of Defence and DFAT. We need to ‘expand [our] imaginations and ambitions, and be cautious about the roadblocks’. We need to ‘reflect on our assumptions’ about security.
Instead of tearing our corrupt, belligerent, patriarchal, neoliberal, Anglo post-colonial ruling ideologies a new arsehole, Stratling and Wallis urge us to accept ‘broader notions’ of what security means, take an intersectional approach to the diversity of Australians, coordinate Statecraft with other departments, be a ‘better regional partner’, think about how climate relates to it all, accept the possibility that our regional neighbours might actually be worth listening to, and to change our current concept of ‘foreign aid’ from giving money to Australian companies so they can profit more efficiently from whatever nation they’re extracting profits from, and instead work with other nations to create genuine understanding, even friendship, without expecting anything for it.
See? It’s all very reasonable. Worth discussing over tea and a biscuit while we try to ignore Peter Dutton in the background, red-faced and spitting, wearing a Trump wig and comparing anti-war demonstrators to mass murderers. Stratling and Wallis even suggest…well, ‘suggest’ is a bit strong, but they imply we might think about considering the possibility that AUKUS may pose one or two issues that, over time, we could perhaps talk about. Or have an inquiry or report or some-such. A report that could, for example, be written by experts and insiders in the Australian national security commu…oh, wait.
This was Stratling and Wallis’ chance to lay bare the post-colonial lies and capitalist extortion of our peoples, our nation and our environment. Instead, in the nicest possible way, they avoid any of that to imply, to hint, to gently suggest that we, or those special elite who occupy the lofty realms of the Australian national security community, could perhaps better lead us to that glorious, safe, secure, cosy future, one where we aren’t trading body parts for medicine or forming mobs with which to storm the bunkers of billionaires and eat them.
So, to summarise – well written, well reasoned academic book, with a good, broad scope of inquiry in ‘re-imagining’ Australia’s security. The only thing missing, for me, is a couple of blood-dripping machetes and the dismembered corpses of Murdoch minions and political grifters who think nothing of cheating Timor Leste for an oil company, lying about weapons of mass destruction that don’t exist, imprisoning refugees, backing genocidal Israeli theocrats, or doing rotten deals that soak us for billions while quietly setting up cushy jobs for their post-political careers.
After setting up AUKUS, Scott Morrison waited exactly 18 months, the time legally required before private employment in the AUKUS arms industry was allowed, before he resigned and got a job in the AUKUS arms industry.
I wanted someone else, an insider, to expose and share that visceral anger. Instead I was advised to ‘re-imagine’ Australia’s security. To the authors, I can assure them that I, and every other spec-fic novelist, has indeed imagined our future, and I regret to tell you that a slightly less vicious, slightly more inclusive, business-as-usual model isn’t going to do it.
[Disclosure: this review was published in the Tasmanian Times]
August 10, 2024
Comprehensive, thorough and well researched. A fascinating, if dense, tour of security and Australia's maritime domain.
The main standouts for me were the fusion of thinking about the security implications of climate change into several chapters - though it would've been nice to have more on this in the chapters on the South China Sea and Australia's north sea. That said, the chapter on the Pacific is a standout on this and other fronts, and the chapter on the South China Sea builds concretely on books like Brendan Taylor's "Four Flashpoints" that cover the same.
The book took me time to work through - while well structured, it can sometimes feel laborious. But the trade off is its comprehensive - for example, the chapter on the Indian Ocean in particular took multiple viewpoints that gave it real strength.
It was also a shame that the thread around Indigenous security concepts seemed to be lost fairly early on - I was looking forward to seeing how it would land through each subsequent chapter.
But a great book, and one I will come back to over the next few years I'm sure. Well worth the read.
The main standouts for me were the fusion of thinking about the security implications of climate change into several chapters - though it would've been nice to have more on this in the chapters on the South China Sea and Australia's north sea. That said, the chapter on the Pacific is a standout on this and other fronts, and the chapter on the South China Sea builds concretely on books like Brendan Taylor's "Four Flashpoints" that cover the same.
The book took me time to work through - while well structured, it can sometimes feel laborious. But the trade off is its comprehensive - for example, the chapter on the Indian Ocean in particular took multiple viewpoints that gave it real strength.
It was also a shame that the thread around Indigenous security concepts seemed to be lost fairly early on - I was looking forward to seeing how it would land through each subsequent chapter.
But a great book, and one I will come back to over the next few years I'm sure. Well worth the read.
April 22, 2024
Really felt this was bang on average. It was good in that it points out the issues with Australian defence start, and over reliance on the US, failing to practise what we preach, etc. but there are just some many other books, Fear of Abandonment, Echidna Start, sub imperial power, these are all significantly better at proposing an alternative.
Displaying 1 - 4 of 4 reviews