WARNING: Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander listeners are warned that the following podcast contains stories about deceased persons.

Listen here:

Released at the start of Reconciliation Week 2023, Sharon Bessell and Arnagretta Hunter acknowledge the 6^th anniversary of the Uluru Statement from the Heart and discuss with Rachel how those fighting for change are trying to make it happen.

Rachel talks about the legacy her documentary The Australian Wars leaves for future generations and how important it is that school students today are taught the true history of our indigenous peoples.

She also discusses the legacy of her work and that of her father, Charles ‘Charlie’ Perkins. As a civil rights activist, he led the University of Sydney students on a ‘Freedom Ride’, which played an important role in shaping the 1967 referendum, but also the conversation around our current Voice to Parliament referendum.

“We put our trust in the Australian people and hopes in the Australian people because we have had our trust and hopes shattered so many times by the government,” she says.

All indigenous people are asking for, she says, is a modest request to have an advisory body cemented into the constitution. Unless the majority of Australians back this request, the government won’t listen to indigenous people, “in a way, our fellow Australians’ voice, gives us a voice.”

Rachel Perkins is a film and television director, producer, and screenwriter and a proud Arrente and Kalkadoon woman. Rachel has directed a number of significant films including Radiance, One Night the Moon, Bran Nue Dae, and Jasper Jones and a number of documentaries including The Australian Wars. She is also co-chair of Australians for Indigenous Constitutional Recognition, one of the most prominent ‘Yes’ institutions in the country.

Sharon Bessell is a Professor of Public Policy and Director of both the Children’s Policy Centre and the Poverty and Inequality Research Centre at ANU Crawford School of Public Policy.

Arnagretta Hunter is the Human Futures Fellow at ANU College of Health and Medicine, a cardiologist, physician, and a Senior Clinical Lecturer at ANU Medical School.

Show notes | The following was mentioned during this episode

The Australian Wars – Directed by Rachel Perkins (2022)

Waitangi Tribunal – New Zealand Government

Uluru Statement from the Heart (2017)

2022 Australian Reconciliation Barometer – Reconciliation Australia (2022)

Beacon of Democracy: The strength of listening – Helen Haines on Policy Forum Pod (2023)

Lessons from South Australia’s Voice to Parliament – Dale Agius on Policy Forum Pod (2023)

Courting change: Indigenous reconciliation – Kate Auty on Policy Forum Pod (2023)

Speaking from the heart – Aunty Patricia Anderson AO on Policy Forum Pod (2021)

1965 Freedom Ride – Australian Institute of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Studies

Policy Forum Pod is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum.

The post Podcast: Behind the scenes of change appeared first on Policy Forum.

To begin the first of several conversations over the coming months, Sharon and Arnagretta are joined by Professor Kate Auty.

You can listen here: http://bit.ly/43aOgPT

Professor Kate Auty is a Vice Chancellor’s Fellow at the University of Melbourne and Chair of Victoria’s Environment Protection Authority. She has formerly held appointments as a magistrate in Victoria where she helped establish the Koori Court in Shepparton, and in the goldfields and western desert of Western Australia, establishing Aboriginal sentencing courts in consultation with Aboriginal people. Her latest book is O’Leary of the Underworld: The Untold Story of the Forrest River Massacre.

WARNING:  Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander viewers are warned that the following program contains discussion of deceased persons. This episode recounts some aspects of Australian history that are violent and some listeners may find disturbing.

Show notes | The following was mentioned during this episode

Kate Auty – O’Leary of the Underworld: The Untold Story of the Forrest River Massacre 

Policy Forum Pod is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum.

The post Podcast: Courting change – Indigenous reconciliation appeared first on Policy Forum.

In the aftermath of the United States Speaker of the House of Representatives Nancy Pelosi’s Taiwan visit in August, China has assertively pushed to regularise military exercises closer to Taiwan than it has previously.

In short, it has sought to make exercises it originally conducted temporarily in response to the visit a permanent fixture of its power projection.

In a way this new normal is just the old normal amplified.

In the month before Pelosi’s visit to Taiwan, China repeatedly flexed its military muscle, conducting incursions into the island’s air defence identification zone.

As the visit approached, the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) escalated its power projection, crossing the Taiwan Strait median line with PLA fighter jets and using PLA Navy carriers to encircle Taiwan.

Even compared with its actions during the 1996 Taiwan crisis, China’s large-scale military exercises around the island of Taiwan were flagrant. The PLA conducted its exercises closer to the island with a level of intensity that was much more threatening than in the past.

If this level of open military posturing were to become the new normal, nobody in the region would benefit. Not only could it escalate tensions directly to armed conflict due to high risks of miscalculation, but even without open fire, cross-strait relations could become too volatile for any meaningful dialogue to take place.

More on this: Conflict over Taiwan is not inevitable

The states of the region have to try and prevent this. If China’s extreme military measures are left unchecked, Chinese leaders could see this as a ‘failed’ or ‘weak’ response from regional powers, and as a concession. This could embolden hawkish leaders within China, priming the PLA to further pressure Taiwan or engage in other assertive military behaviour.

Apart from its international consequences, this situation would be a disaster for the security of the people of Taiwan.

Of course, there are many ways to challenge China’s behaviour. While avoiding war in the strait must always come first, the United States and its allies should also not ‘let a good crisis go to waste’.

The region’s China strategy needs a revival, starting with the United States. The countries of the Asia Pacific should encourage it to pursue a ‘two-track policy’ similar to how it approached the Cold War.

In the Cold War, the United States sought military containment of the Soviet Union on one hand, and the construction of a strong network of diplomatic partners on the other.

To apply similar logic to China and its behaviour in the Taiwan Strait, the region’s democracies should utilise American resources to contain China’s assertiveness militarily, while constructing a network of cooperation.

In military containment terms, these countries could strengthen deterrence by carefully conducting joint air and maritime transits through the Taiwan Strait.

More on this: A turbulent year ahead in cross-strait relations

With a focus on ‘innocent passage’ through the strait and freedom of navigation operations, the United States and regional powers like Australia, India, Japan, South Korea, and others could use military operations to show the gravity of their disapproval of China’s aggressive behaviour. This will give their defiance of China’s unilateral and illegal claims in the region a grounding in hard power. As they do this, they should also build their soft power, and consolidate alignments that the United States has been forming across the region with its allies into a stronger, larger group.

For example, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (Quad), which comprises the United States, Japan, Australia, and India, should offer more pragmatic benefits to its members to encourage better collaboration and prevent members feeling unvalued.

The inclusion of Taiwan in the Quad or a body like it should also be on the table.

While such an extreme step may have been an unrealistic proposition in the past, the PLA’s growing belligerence has changed this.

The United States would have to do this while continuing to espouse its ‘One China’ policy, but there is potential for a workaround. Granting Taiwan its own status of the Quad, or a new grouping like it, not as a member but as a ‘dialogue partner’ or something similar, could be a viable approach. This could make Taiwan more secure without turning up the heat too much.

Regardless of its exact shape, this experience shows that the Indo-Pacific needs a multilateral approach designed to institutionalise cooperation among like-minded countries on this issue.

Unfortunately, as the buffer between Chinese power and the people of Taiwan shrinks, a return to norms from before Pelosi’s visit isn’t achievable.

The Asia-Pacific region needs a new approach – one that balances strength with dialogue. Above all, its leaders must remember that in a crisis, complacency can be as dangerous a choice as acting rashly.

The post Resisting China’s push for a ‘new normal’ in the Taiwan Strait appeared first on Policy Forum.

Australian women and girls with disabilities are twice as likely to experience violence than women and girls without disabilities. How can policymakers address ableism and gender inequality, two intersecting drivers of this violence? Why is co-design so important to policy-making in this area? And what role do all Australians have to play in preventing this violence from taking place? Professor Sharon Bessell and Dr Arnagretta Hunter are joined by Patty Kinnersly, Chief Executive Officer of Our Watch, and Jen Hargrave, Senior Policy Officer at Women with Disabilities Victoria, to discuss their new Changing the landscape report. Listen now: https://bit.ly/3hek8MQ

Patty Kinnersly is CEO of Our Watch, an independent not-for-profit organisation and national leader in the primary prevention of violence against women and their children in Australia.

Jen Hargrave is Senior Policy Officer at Women with Disabilities Victoria and Research Assistant at the University of Melbourne’s School of Population Health.

Sharon Bessell is Professor of Public Policy and Director of Gender Equity and Diversity at Crawford School of Public Policy at ANU.

Arnagretta Hunter is the Human Futures Fellow at ANU College of Health and Medicine, a cardiologist, physician, and a Senior Clinical Lecturer at ANU Medical School.

If you or someone you know is impacted by sexual assault, family or domestic violence, call 1800RESPECT on 1800 737 732 or visit www.1800RESPECT.org.au. In an emergency, call 000.

The Changing the landscape report, summary, and associated resources are available on the Our Watch website.

Show notes | The following were mentioned during this episode:

United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (UNCRPD) (2007)

Change the story, Our Watch (2021)

Australia’s Royal Commission into Violence, Abuse, Neglect and Exploitation of People with Disability

Policy Forum Pod is available on Acast, Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher, Subscribe on Android or wherever you get your podcasts. We’d love to hear your feedback for this podcast series! Send in your questions, comments, or suggestions for future episodes to podcast@policyforum.net. You can also Tweet us @APPSPolicyForum or join us on the Facebook group.

The post Podcast: Preventing violence against women and girls with disabilities appeared first on Policy Forum.

The development of national security strategies is now firmly on the Pacific regional agenda. Four countries have completed such strategies – Papua New Guinea (2013), Samoa (2018), Vanuatu (2019), and Solomon Islands (2020) – while a number of others are well advanced.

The region has been quick to adopt an expanded concept of security – articulated by Pacific Island Forum leaders in the 2018 Boe Declaration on Regional Security – which extends well beyond traditional notions of security such as sovereignty, territorial integrity, and the maintenance of internal stability. There is widespread recognition of the gravity of global threats posed by ‘problems without borders’, such as climate change, the spread of infectious diseases, and cyber-attacks, and that human security and a just society are fundamental to national security.

Typically, a national security strategy provides an overarching framework which includes a vision and objectives for national security and a series of other elements, including an outline of the national, regional and global security environment, and an outline of the capabilities needed to meet challenges and maximise opportunities.

There is no one template that can be applied across the region. Nevertheless the countries of the region by and large face many of the same challenges. So it makes sense for them to work together, particularly given that most are small, with limited resources. The region has shown it can have a strong voice globally on certain issues, such as climate change, and also has a strong network of regional organisations and development partners to draw on. These strengths should be highlighted in national security strategies.

These strategies outline an action plan for specific initiatives, a more general statement of directions the government proposes to take to reinforce national security over the short and long term, and a describes the government machinery and other proposed measures to implement the strategy.

More on this: Pacific pivot or pirouette?

When designed effectively, national security strategies make Pacific states more secure because they provide a clear direction for the nation’s security efforts. Primarily, a well designed and implemented strategy allows Pacific countries to better prioritise security threats and allocate resources. This has knock-on effects of allowing countries to make better security decisions, especially in times of crisis, and to collect more specific and relevant data regarding current and future threats.

A widespread problem in the region is poor collaboration and information-sharing between government agencies on national security issues, and more generally the absence of a deep-rooted whole-of-government culture. These are issues that national security strategies can begin to address.

Effective national security strategy development requires both a strong whole-of-government focus and a comprehensive program of consultations with the public, private and community sectors. Wide consultation is essential to gain a full understanding of the most pressing security issues across the nation, strengthen national ownership of the strategy, raise awareness, and take full advantage of the strong role played by traditional institutions in maintaining social cohesion, security and harmony.

In many cases the most important outcome of a national security strategy developed by Pacific Island nations will be the implementation measures, notably those dealing with new or strengthened government machinery. Most nations of the region currently have only a very modest national security system, or none at all, and only few personnel specifically assigned to cover national security issues.

More on this: Public-private policing partnerships

The key element of new government machinery is likely to be a senior-level national security committee or council, with the authority to take decisions and make recommendations to cabinet. An example of such a structure is Samoa’s National Security Committee, which was first proposed in 2018. The essential requirement is that all relevant agencies be represented on such a body in order to ensure that all voices are heard and prevent inefficiencies created by a lack of coordination and a duplication of efforts.

Another important element of a national security strategy concerns the nation’s assessment capability, essential for sound decision-making on national and regional security issues. Overall the region is weak in this regard.

More generally, the lack of good quality data is a widespread problem in the region. Now is the time to boost national assessment capabilities, drawing on the growing amount of information and analysis available from open sources, as well as from regional organisations and trusted bilateral partners.

Forum leaders took the far-sighted step in 2018 of embracing the concept of national security strategies, and the COVID-19 crisis has reinforced the importance of sound-decision making more generally as nations face the plethora of security challenges ahead. National security strategies, if effectively implemented, will be a major boost to governments in dealing with the tough decisions which are becoming all too common in a growingly complex world.

The post Strategies for a safer Pacific appeared first on Policy Forum.

In August 2020, the government of India extended $500 million in aid to buttress a connectivity project in the Maldives. The package consisted of a $100 million grant and a $400 million line of credit, and the loan is intended to build bridges and causeways connecting the country’s mainland capital with its many islets.

Importantly, the project is touted to be bigger than any Chinese funded project in the Maldives. The loans are an effort at normalising ties with Maldives, a country that has habitually oscillated its support between India and China. Currently the pendulum has swung towards India but closeness between them does not portend Chinese influence to dissipate in Maldives.

Between 1978 and 2008, under Maldives’ former President Maumoon Abdul Gayoom, India enjoyed favourable ties with the country without significant interference from China. Such an exclusive relationship ended when Maldives governments under Presidents Mohammed Waheed Hassan and Abdulla Yameen welcomed Chinese investments and undertakings in its economy and beyond.

In 2012, the Waheed government borrowed $500 million from China, and closeness between China and Maldives became even clearer when they inked a military aid agreement in the same year.

As Maldives inched closer to China, it simultaneously moved further from India’s sphere of influence. The governments during that period sometimes acted in antagonistic ways towards India. For example, the Yameen government in 2018 decided to return two Dhruv helicopters that were gifted by India to the coast guard.

More on this: Paradise plagued by political unrest

The Maldives government also criticised India’s tendency for military intervention as an affront to its sovereignty and its ambition to engulf the island when domestic politics becomes unstable.

From late 2018 onwards, a change in power brought reprieve to strained diplomatic ties between the two countries. The present democratically elected regime led by Mohamed Solih backtracked on deals such as a free trade agreement made with China by the previous government.

However, India’s inroads in Maldives do not mean China’s influence will necessarily recede. China still has several ongoing projects in Maldives which will continue to keep the economy buoyant as the tourism industry struggles.

It is likely that China will continue to work with the new leader unfazed, as it has done with Sri Lanka’s president. China’s largesse for developing countries transcends domestic politics.

Both governments in Maldives and Sri Lanka were elected on the promise of eradicating corruption by government officials and reducing debt accrued from China’s loans. But both governments also resumed Chinese projects after briefly halting them, fearing the economic cost.

Maldives President Ibrahim Mohamed Solih has also maintained interests in China’s Belt and Road Initiative to balance Maldives’ foreign policy interests. Wary of facing similar consequences experienced by Sri Lanka from Chinese ‘debt-trap diplomacy’, the government has begun to diversify its foreign investments.

More on this: National Security Podcast: Hon Mariya Didi, Minister of Defence of the Republic of Maldives

It is now much appreciable of India’s aid. In December 2018, when Yameen’s government exited, India gave $1.4 billion to the Maldives to offset Chinese loans. The news of these low-cost loans drew the ire of Chinese leaders.

Indian loans are carefully aimed at nurturing local jobs and accepting local partnerships at personal and national levels. This assistance will allow Maldives to make its own independent decisions regarding the projects it wishes to undertake.

The aid comes at a critical moment as Maldives’ biggest industry, tourism, is suffering from the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The financial package, together with several deals either in the pipeline or waiting to be finalised, will jumpstart the tourism industry.

Financial aid in civic infrastructure projects aside, India has proven to be a reliable and trustworthy partner for Maldives especially in times of disasters, and it views itself as being responsible for aiding its neighbour in times of crisis.

During the 2004 Tsunami that severely affected Maldives for instance, India contributed significant relief and aid to the country.

Recently, similar dedication was shown during Maldives response to COVID-19, by delivering goods such as medical items immediately, despite strained bilateral ties.

In 2014, when Yameen’s government was identifying with China, India also provided large quantities of drinking water to the capital Male when its desalination plants were burnt. Clearly, India has a robust track record in providing necessities and aid to its partners in the Indian Ocean.

Still, India should accept that China’s influence in Maldives is likely to remain immutable. This doesn’t mean it should discontinue its work, and India’s inroads into Maldives need not trigger a zero-sum game with China.

Rather, both major powers should compete for relative gains in Maldives, a situation that can allow the country to get the best deal it can from each of its larger partners.

For Maldives’ part, alienating either power is not an option, especially when its economy is recovering from the pandemic. Both India’s financial aid and humanitarian assistance go a long way to restoring ties between the two countries, and this is good for both governments.

Still, Indian policymakers will have to accept that simply ramping up spending won’t be enough to ease China out of the island nation, and a long-term strategy to engage with Maldives is the only way forward for it in this space.

The post India is making inroads in Maldives, but China stays on top appeared first on Policy Forum.

Whilst much of the world has focused on the ongoing battle against COVID-19 in the US, Europe and Asia, we at Policy Forum have also been paying close attention to the specific, and often underreported, challenges facing the Pacific in these uncertain times. The Pacific has long faced security issues related to climate change, inequality and food insecurity, which have been made worse in the wake of COVID-19. The variety in each nation’s response has been as diverse as the region itself.

The Pacific COVID-19 response map, which has been developed by ANU CartoGIS, the Australia Pacific Security College (PSC), and the ANU Department of Pacific Affairs provides an accessible way for researchers and the general public to get up-to-date data on the ongoing response to COVID-19 in the Pacific region. The Map provides a snapshot of local response measures, and includes links to ANU research which unpacks what these measures mean on the ground. These links are on the final screen in each country’s pop-up box, so make sure you scroll through to the end.

The data in the map is a snapshot of that which is collected by the Australia Pacific Security College (PSC) for the weekly COVID-19 Pacific Island Response Matrix. For the full dataset, and weekly ‘Trendlines’ blog series, please follow the below link: https://www.policyforum.net/covid-19-the-pacific-response-2-december/

The commentaries in the map are sourced from research published by the ANU Department of Pacific Affairs, Policy Forum, PSC and the Development Policy Centre (Devpol). We hope you find the map useful as we continue to help you understand an important region.

The post Mapping the Pacific COVID-19 response appeared first on Policy Forum.

It is almost certain that after the COVID-19 pandemic is over, the world will see a radical shift in the global political economy. The nature of the post-pandemic world will depend on two things.

First will be the relative degree of economic recovery seen in nations who are badly hit by the pandemic outbreak, when compared with others who might have been able to partially protect their economies.

Second, and this is crucial but understated, will be the inevitable shifts in the domestic political scenarios of affected nations.

Before the pandemic, majoritarian populist sentiment in many countries was electing strongmen political leaders, who combine brash public personalities with increasingly authoritarian tendencies. Even outside these countries, a general desire to strengthen nation-states – often in a backlash against the multilateral ‘globalist’ world order – was on the rise.

More on this: Emma Alberici – What type of world will we be left with after COVID-19?

The outbreak has caused many problems, but it has also thrown the world an opportunity for increasing multilateral cooperation amongst G20 actors and the rest of the world. Alternatively, the pandemic may trigger an acceleration effect, even further restraining populist and authoritarian governments from participating in cooperative multilateral solutions.

Thus far, the role of the G20 in handling the crisis, along with the Bretton Woods financial institutions, like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, have rung hollow, and the world has mostly seen nations opting to fend for themselves.

The nationalist government in Hungary – a member of the European Union – for instance, passed a law granting sweeping emergency powers to Prime Minister Viktor Orban in fighting the pandemic.

The law grants almost absolute discretionary authority to the prime minister, side-lining all parliamentary due process, allowing him the power to rule by decree indefinitely. Under the law, he also has the power to punish anyone who spreads ‘false information’, by the government’s own determination, with a sentence up to five years in prison.

China too, is now commanding even greater authoritarian control and surveillance on its citizens under President Xi. Britain’s Prime Minister Boris Johnson has seen a rise in his approval ratings, and American President Donald Trump has used this opportunity to get more national attention in an election year, attempting to project himself as a ‘war-time president’.

President Trump has also utilised the moment to pursue his personal political agenda, justifying xenophobic tendencies. The President has been using the crisis to cite how useful it is to have borders, restrict the mobility of immigrants, and attack China.

Since the outbreak began, there has been less evidence of multilateral cooperation than some might have hoped for. The pandemic has only widened the gap between the United States and China, and the credibility of the World Health Organization (WHO) has been majorly damaged.

Steps such as excluding Taiwan from emergency meetings and praising China’s response to the virus have made the World Health Organization look like ‘a mouthpiece for Beijing’ to some onlookers. It is certainly true, regardless of opinion on these organisations, that it has become national, and even regional, governments and organisations, not international institutions, that have been the face of political responses to the pandemic.

More on this: Podcast: Hope and life after COVID-19 – health, politics, and people power

The choices people and governments make now will define the world we will all inhabit after the storm passes. In making these choices, governments need to be wary of their long-term ramifications.

One key pattern in the most affected nation-states so far is how the fight against the coronavirus has fostered support for leaders who appear strong, but this will have its drawbacks.

Hyper-nationalist sentiments that were earlier finding their voice in concerns for immigration and national security are doing so now in begetting urgent social security in response to the pandemic.

These patterns in world re-ordering are not totally new, and can be seen in the historical example of the 1930s. How economies recovered, and the shape of domestic politics that came along with this, in the decade after the Great Depression triggered the rise of fascism and the economic supremacy of the United States. This undoubtedly influenced the future of world politics for many decades following,

As Barry Eichengreen explains in his recent book The Populist Temptation, in the 1930s “There was economic nationalism all over [the United States]” in the form of trade wars.

These trade wars were accompanied by a rise in xenophobic sentiment, including antisemitism and the harassment and deportation of Mexican Americans, even those who were hospital patients. It is simple to see the parallels that could be drawn with today’s United States.

These are the same realisations, as Eichengreen argues, that gave rise to the New Deal in the 1930s and the Beveridge Report in 1942, which combined to create a very different social, economic, and political order than existed before.

In the financial world, more banking regulation kicked in after the Great Depression and the international monetary system of the gold standard collapsed, which lead to the establishment of a new order. The world may now be facing a crisis of similar proportions and it could see a re-ordering this severe again.

That said, this is not the 1930s.

While parallel insinuations might be appealing and tempting to make, post-coronavirus politics will be different. Perhaps, it will lead to a general public preference of more commanding, controlling, and coercive authoritarian governance in different nations.

A plea for national security may go hand in hand with the need for greater social security (say, in healthcare, employment). In some nations, where authoritarianism is deeply entrenched, and change in this sphere is very difficult to achieve, there might be a centrifugal effect induced by the rejection of these policies in the wake of the pandemic, pulling public-sentiment away from authoritarian governments towards a need for greater freedom and transparency.

Whether populations double down on their strongman leaders, most likely leading to a transition in nation-states’ economic preferences in the post-pandemic world, is yet to be seen. What is clear, however, is that when this is all over, the world will be very different, and a new normal, whatever that may be, will set in.

The post The post-pandemic world appeared first on Policy Forum.

2018 has been a turbulent year in global policy and politics. Here in Canberra, Australia, where Policy Forum is based, we’ve seen the throwing out of a Prime Minister (and not for the first time), and a gross failure to get to grips with energy and climate change policy coupled with an increasing dissatisfaction from the country’s citizens (proudly led by the nation’s school children) on these key issues.

In our region we’ve seen issues that have reverberated around the world, such as Myanmar’s ongoing treatment of its Rohingya people, and China’s treatment of the Uighurs (brilliantly explained by Thomas Cliff in this podcast). China has also continued to test boundaries, both physical and metaphorical, while North Korea has been wooed by a US leader that has moved on from calling Kim Jong-un ‘little rocket man’ to making Hollywood-style short movies to win him over to democratic reform.

Meanwhile, on the other side of the world, Britain continues to plan its Brexit from the European Union – an effort that is going so well that as we write this the UK government is reportedly planning to deploy the country’s armed forces to deal with disruption from a possible ‘no-deal’ Brexit.

The Policy Forum team (L-R): Tessia Deng, Julia Ahrens, Martyn Pearce, Sophie Riedel, Lydia Kim, and Cherry Zheng. Photo by Elsa Zhao (https://www.instagram.com/elsazhaoblog/).

Chris Farnham, our esteemed writer and presenter of the National Security Podcast, thought long and hard about calling his podcast on the Helsinki Summit ‘LOL, WTF?’ Eventually he settled on different wording, but the sentiment could be applied to any number of head-scratching policy and political issues around the world.

We’re proud to say, though, that much of this change has been documented and analysed by our team of incredible writers, contributors, and pod panellists. Over the last 12 months, we have published some 300 articles and 79 podcasts. In June our regular Policy Forum Pod series was joined by the National Security Podcast series which we put together with our friends at the ANU National Security College. In July we also launched The Brief, a short, sharp podcast covering recent policy issues in Australia and beyond. Our regular Policy Forum Pod continues to go from strength to strength, covering a huge range of policy topics and proudly bringing a multi-disciplinary approach to discussions. We also hosted or co-hosted several highly successful events on topics ranging from peace in the Pacific, to the future of the public service, to rural policy.

Ultimately though, Policy Forum and all the things we do are only successful because of you – our readers, listeners, and contributors. Your thoughtful comments are what makes the site and podcast such a thriving success. We try our best to acknowledge all your contributions, but with a fast moving site covering a huge range of issues it can be hard to keep on top of it all.

As we move towards the end of the year, we thank each and every one of you – for reading, for writing, for listening, for tweeting at us, and for every other way you reach out to us, let us know your thoughts, and show us your support. You are the best kind of people – even those who write to tell us how wrong we are! We don’t want everyone to agree with us, but we do want people to engage on the decisions that are being made that affect our future.

From everyone here at Policy Forum we hope you have a good break and a fantastic new year, and very much look forward to sharing 2019 with you.

Happy holidays!

Quentin, Martyn, Julia, Lydia, Sophie, Tessia & Cherry.

The post A big thank you from us at Policy Forum appeared first on Policy Forum.

The United States has announced it is pulling funding from the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA). On Quartz, Annalisa Merelli writes that the issue of coerced abortions in China – the Trump Administration’s stated justification for the move – could actually worsen under cuts to the UNFPA. On CNN, Caroline Kuo writes that defunding the UNFPA is just the latest of several Trump policy decisions undermining the health of girls and women worldwide. To hear more about the work of the UNFPA, check out Policy Forum’s recent podcast interview with its Executive Director Babatunde Osotimehin.

As Trump hosts Chinese President Xi Jinping at his resort in Florida this week, James Holmes on The National Interest provides a list of five things Trump should anticipate when it comes to dealing with the Chinese. On Politico, Charles Edel and Mira Rapp-Hooper write that early signs indicate that Xi will run the table, while Ely Ratner from the Council on Foreign Relations argues that by giving President Xi VIP treatment, Trump has already misstepped.

On the topic of China, Australia’s Turnbull Government has found itself in hot water after scrapping an extradition treaty with Beijing just days after a visit by Chinese Premier Li Keqiang. The Economist writes on how the stalled treaty highlights Australia’s broader geopolitical dilemma. On Policy Forum, Stephen Tully weighs up the legal debates behind extradition, while at South China Morning Post, Alex Lo points out the double standard at work when it comes to extradition treaties with China.

In recent weeks Papua New Guinea made an unexpected request for Australia to convert its entire annual aid program for the country into a direct transfer into the PNG budget. On DevPolicy Blog, Sam Koim takes a look at the delicate balance Australia must walk in managing its relationship with PNG on the issue. Meanwhile, The Age argues that given its history with its northern neighbour, Australia owes PNG more than just charity.

A gas attack in Syria killing more than 70 people has provoked international condemnation. Writing for The Atlantic, Thanassis Cambanis speculates on the motive behind this latest use of chemical weapons, while Praveen Swami at The Indian Express asks why chemical attacks are considered taboo in a war in which half a million people have been killed by conventional weapons. At The Daily Beast, Christopher Dickey argues that Obama was right to abandon his ‘red line’ on Syria’s chemical weapons. Meanwhile, on Policy Forum, Daniel Fazio takes a look at the chemical weapons threat posed by the ‘gangster state’ in North Korea.

Indonesia has just wrapped up the largest tax amnesty in history, swelling coffers by around US$8 billion. On Policy Forum, Jonathan Farrar writes that the amnesty may come with a hidden price tag. At New Mandala, Natasha Hamilton-Hart and Günther Schulze take a look at the tax amnesty in the context of Indonesia’s declining revenues. Writing for Asia Times, John McBeth argues that the episode has shone a harsh light on the pervasiveness of corruption in the country.

Want more for your weekend? You can catch up with our Policy Forum podcast here, or via iTunes, Stitcher, and Soundcloud. If you like what you hear, please give us a review on iTunes and help us get the word out.

The post Policy File appeared first on Policy Forum.