Nardon, Laurence, ‘Space Security: Europe Takes the Lead’, Institut Francais des Relations Internationales,Paris, 2009.Quam, Erik R, and James Clay Moltz, ‘Asian Approaches to Space Security’, Monterey Instituteof International Studies, 10 May 2007: see , accessed12 <strong>Nov</strong>ember 2009.Rudd, Kevin, ‘The First National Security Statement to the <strong>Australian</strong> Parliament’, Canberra, 4 <strong>Dec</strong>ember2008.Steele, David, ‘The Weaponisation of Space: Next Arms Race?’, Centre for <strong>Defence</strong> and Strategic Studies,<strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Defence</strong> College, Shedden Paper, 2007.Tellis, Ashley J., ‘China’s Space Capabilities and their Impact on US National Security’, CongressionalTestimony before the US-China Economic and Security Review Commission ‘China’s ProliferationPractices and the Development of its Cyber and Space Warfare Capabilities’, 20 May 2008, CarnegieEndowment for International Peace website: see , accessed 15 <strong>Nov</strong>ember 2009.The Council of the European Union, ‘Draft Code of Conduct for Outer Space Activities’, Brussels,17 <strong>Dec</strong>ember 2008: see , accessed1 <strong>Nov</strong>ember 2009.The Senate Standing Committee on Economics. ‘Lost in Space?: Setting a new direction for Australia’sspace science and industry sector’, Canberra: Commonwealth of Australia, <strong>Nov</strong>ember 2008.US-China Economic and Security Review Commission, ‘Report on the Capability of the People’s Republicof China to Conduct Cyber Warfare and Computer Network Exploitation’, Northrop Grumman, Virginia,9 October 2009.West, Jessica, ‘A common priority: A space security policy for Canada’, The Ploughshares Monitor, 2008,pp 20-2.West, Jessica, ‘Reaching Out – New approaches to security in space’, The Ploughshares Monitor, 2009,pp 6-8.West, Jessica (ed.), ‘Space Security 2009’, Project Ploughshares, Ontario, August 2009: see , accessed 1 <strong>Nov</strong>ember 2009.16
Pakistan-US bilateral relations: a difficultroad aheadDr Claude Rakisits, Deakin University (and Centre for <strong>Defence</strong> and StrategicStudies, <strong>Australian</strong> <strong>Defence</strong> College)IntroductionIn the wake of the catastrophic floods in Pakistan from July to September <strong>2010</strong>, US relationswith Pakistan have once again come to the fore. Because these floods have destroyed so muchof the country’s infrastructure—such as roads, bridges, power lines, schools, hospitals anddikes—only the US has the economic clout to be able to contribute significantly to the longtermreconstruction of the country which Pakistani Prime Minister Gilani has estimated willcost about US$45 billion. 1Unfortunately, since Pakistan’s independence in 1947, relations between Pakistan and the UShave often been prickly or difficult, certainly never warm and more often simply neglected.However, more importantly, Pakistan has always been overshadowed by neighbouring India,which is much bigger and has always been democratic. The fact that India during the ColdWar was a leader of the Non-Alignment Movement and in 1971 even signed a 20-year ‘Treatyof Peace and Friendship and Cooperation’ with the Soviet Union did not seem to put Pakistanin a more favourable light vis-à-vis the US. And, on the whole, it has only been when Pakistancould play a strategic role in support of Washington’s broader international interests that thelatter has paid closer attention to the relationship.The fall-out of these floods, which have hit Pakistan with such devastating destruction, may wellbe the opportunity for the US and Pakistan to build in a meaningful way a bilateral relationshipwhich has been suffering what US Secretary of State calls a ‘trust deficit’. 2 However, as will beexamined in this article, there is a lot of baggage that has accumulated since the two countriesestablished diplomatic relations almost 65 years ago. It will take a lot of work on the part ofboth countries to fix that and move the relationship forward.It will be argued that while the road to rebuilding this trust will be long and difficult, the USGovernment has no option but to do all it can to continue working hard on improving thebilateral relationship. It is not only in both countries’ interests to do so but also in the interestof the region, particularly Afghanistan and India, and the wider international community.1947–2001: a relationship with many lows, few highsProbably the single most important factor that explains this difficult bilateral relationshipis that Pakistan and the US entered the bilateral relationship for different reasons. Pakistanjoined the US-led alliance—namely signing in 1954 the Mutual <strong>Defence</strong> Assistance Agreementand in 1959 the Bilateral Agreement of Cooperation, as well as joining in 1954 the South EastAsia Treaty Organisation (SEATO) and one year later the Central Treaty Organisation (CENTO)—as an insurance policy in its confrontation with India, in the hope that the US would give itmilitary support in case of war with its much larger neighbour. 317
- Page 1 and 2: Australian Defence ForceCONTENTSISS
- Page 3 and 4: Securing Space: Australia’s urgen
- Page 5 and 6: Australia’s space security policy
- Page 7 and 8: ChinaChina is the major space power
- Page 9 and 10: Domestic considerationsThe argument
- Page 11 and 12: An Australian space security policy
- Page 13 and 14: 18. Graeme Hooper as quoted in ‘L
- Page 15: BIBLIOGRAPHYBall, Desmond, ‘Asses
- Page 19 and 20: Bhutto, it was his unyielding stanc
- Page 21 and 22: Unfortunately, there is little the
- Page 23 and 24: negative than positive. The one pos
- Page 25 and 26: NOTES1. ‘Floods caused losses wor
- Page 27 and 28: The Difficulties in Predicting Futu
- Page 29 and 30: main attack into Western Europe thr
- Page 31 and 32: In order to more accurately predict
- Page 33 and 34: BIBLIOGRAPHYBoot, Max, War Made New
- Page 35 and 36: for the parachute capability to be
- Page 37 and 38: Redundancy of platforms is importan
- Page 39 and 40: The option of employing both C-17 a
- Page 41 and 42: parachute insertions, the psycholog
- Page 43 and 44: NOTES1. Air Chief Marshal Angus Hou
- Page 45 and 46: Colin East goes to SESKOAD - in ‘
- Page 47 and 48: He was the top graduate of the Aust
- Page 49 and 50: support, it is not surprising that
- Page 51 and 52: East was an assiduous letter writer
- Page 53 and 54: East brought 4RAR back to Australia
- Page 55 and 56: 23. East diary, 21 December 1964.24
- Page 57 and 58: • to promote partnerships among c
- Page 59 and 60: theatres. In its 2006 Quadrennial D
- Page 61 and 62: SOF by their nature are suited to m
- Page 63 and 64: The longer-term vision for NATO SOF
- Page 65 and 66: 25. NATO, ‘Allied Joint Doctrine
- Page 67 and 68:
Peacekeepers: Athena’s championsC
- Page 69 and 70:
Mobs as adversariesMobs do not fit
- Page 71 and 72:
• There is always the presence of
- Page 73 and 74:
policies and customs may serve as g
- Page 75 and 76:
Higher on the continuum would come
- Page 77 and 78:
Managing Global Supply ChainsWing C
- Page 79 and 80:
Many OEMs of commercial equipment a
- Page 81 and 82:
Similarly, the initial and ongoing
- Page 83 and 84:
providers or host nation support. T
- Page 85 and 86:
22. UK Ministry of Defence, ‘The
- Page 87 and 88:
Sustainable Defence Capability: Aus
- Page 89 and 90:
The major strategic risk is resourc
- Page 91 and 92:
This provides a national opportunit
- Page 93 and 94:
The drive towards sustainability by
- Page 95 and 96:
NOTES1. Commonwealth of Australia,
- Page 97 and 98:
Book reviewsTales of War: great sto
- Page 99 and 100:
Some of Kainikara’s proposals cou
- Page 101 and 102:
CounterinsurgencyDavid KilcullenCar
- Page 103 and 104:
and political level against an incr
- Page 105 and 106:
Religion, Conflict and Military Int
- Page 107 and 108:
Challinger’s explanations are sup
- Page 109 and 110:
destroyed in airborne operations in
- Page 111 and 112:
How Wars EndDan ReiterNew Jersey, U