Being a blogger often feels like going fishing. Every morning you cast your line out looking for something to catch and discuss. Some days there's lots of things about, sometimes nothing. Some days you try and catch a big fish to impress others (and usually miss), some days you put in a lot of time and struggle, only to reel in a minnow.

It's a great and rewarding pursuit, but I've come to realise that my knowledge of the bank and currents isn't yet good enough to compete with the pros. So, I'm hanging up my rod for the time being to go researching. I've accepted an Associate Lecturer position at ANU's Strategic and Defence Studies Centre. I'm hoping to spend a few years really getting to know my field, publishing and getting back into teaching.

I'd like to thank all the people at Lowy for their support, but especially Sam who has been an excellent boss and taught me a lot about this craft.

Cheers!

Photo by Flickr user faungg.

• Depressingly low levels of civic education in Australia.
• The gender gap in public support for military actions.
• An ambitious attempt to reform Pakistan's schools, central to the fate of the country. (H/t Browser.)
• A thorough satellite imagery analysis of the infrastructure supporting the PLA's strategic missile force.
• A related item: the defensive nature of China's 'underground great wall'. (Thanks Janice.)
• The Economist on the re-emergence of state capitalism.
• The historical roots of China's growth miracle (it didn't all start in 1978).
• The Carnegie Endowment announces the passing of Therese Delpech, a giant in the nuclear arms control community.

• Rudd continues his Indonesia push: 'My generation has been lazy on Indonesia. Your generation has no alternative but to be energetic on Indonesia'.
• US sending new helicopter drones to Afghanistan.
• Seven principles for arguing with an economist. (H/t Free Exchange.)
• A Washington Quarterly article arguing 'that China will embark on democratization around 2020 or so'.
• A new blog to keep an eye on: Japan Foreign Policy Observatory. (H/t JSW.)
• Some recent North Korea economic statistics.
• Wikipedia is going down for 24 hours as a protest against proposed US internet legislation: students are not coping well.
• Will the US make a long-term commitment to the EAS?
• India is seeking a presence in the Arctic circle. (h/t @rorymedcalf.)
• Finally, an amusing quote from an article about John Burton, head of the Department of External Affairs (today's DFAT) from 1947 to 1950:

British officials criticised his [Burton's] "extraordinary" views, such as that India and Indonesia were more important to Australia than Canada and South Africa.

• Syria is already in a state of civil war.
• Asian leaders worry about the security of oil supplies in the Middle East.
• The state of realism in US foreign policy and academic research.
• A question I've been wondering lately: is Britain still a great power?
• Moves are afoot for ASEAN to become a single-visa tourist destination.
• UAVs are coming to Australia. Seems perfect for the remote top end.
• An interview with Zhang Weiwei on the critical issue of emerging Chinese exceptionalism. (Thanks Thomas.)

• A map of US drone strikes in Pakistan.
• Myanmar signs a ceasefire with Karen rebels and announced another prisoner amnesty.
• Julie Bishop speaks on the Australian Opposition's foreign policy.
• A return to Wukan, the Chinese village that rebelled.
• CFR's new preventative priorities survey, 'intended to help inform the U.S. policy community about the relative urgency and importance of competing conflict prevention demands.'
• Bringing in private industry to help prevent maritime piracy in West Africa.
• Opposition to Putin's run at the Russian presidency is growing bolder.
• Is the War on Terror over?
• An insight into the lives of taxi drivers in PNG: (h/t Emmanuel.)

• North Korea from 30,000 feet: Satellite photos and analysis by two of the very few Westerners to have ever seen North Korea's nuclear facilities. (Thanks Janice.)
• What motivates someone to become a war photographer? (Warning, graphic images.)
• Nationalism and realism: kissing cousins?
• A 360° panoramic photo of London.
• The failure of the Arab League's observers in Syria.
• Further to our discussion of foreign policy 'presidentialism', Rodger Shanahan has a paper out on collaborative leadership in Australia's national security community.
• Are the economies of East Asia slumping?
• The serious uses of video games for learning history and military training.
• Australia's singing diplomats and AusAID officials (one of whom we've featured previously):

In the links last week I highlighted a survey of US international relations (IR) scholars. One question particularly leapt out: 'Which of the following best describes your approach to the study of IR?'.

While a colleague has noted that you'll never hear the word 'constructivism' inside the walls of DFAT*, it is the most popular IR discipline. In some ways this isn't too surprising, as constructivism is a new field with high research energy. But given the traditional dominance of realism, and the return to great power studies that has accompanied China's rise this century, I would have expected many more realists.

It may be that some realists are hiding their ideological colours under the 'I don't have a paradigm' option, but given this is a group of experts being asked about their identification, we must assume they had some reasons for not selecting realism. It is also likely that many realists have shifted over into security studies rather than IR, narrowing the pool of IR realists, without affecting the number of realists who study international affairs. Still, it's noticeable that while realists dominate the big names in public, they are not doing as well inside the disciplinary walls.

* In Gyngell & Wesley's 2007 book 'Making Australian Foreign Policy', they found 68% of DFAT staff identify as realists.

One of the signature foreign policy moves of the Rudd Government was carried out in Canberra. Rudd centralised foreign and defence policy creation, not just into his department (PM&C), but in his office, including creating a new National Security Adviser as the PM's point man. Yet it seems his successor, Julia Gillard, isn't so taken with the changes:

The position of National Security Adviser has been vacant since early August, when the former SAS commander Duncan Lewis stepped down to become Secretary of Defence. And it is only one of six positions within the departments of Defence and Prime Minister and Cabinet that are being filled by acting staff.

The other five are: the two newly created associate secretary positions within Defence; the chief executive of the Defence Materiel Organisation; the deputy NSA; and DPMC's National Security Chief Information Officer.Mr Lewis' deputy, Margot McCarthy, has been the acting National Security Adviser since he left. Some believe that Ms Gillard and the Secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, Ian Watt, believe the role should not have the power it had during Kevin Rudd's prime ministership.

While sometimes there are inevitable delays, Gillard has run a more efficient ship-of-state than her predecessor, leading me to believe that it is a disinclination for a centralised security office in PM&C that better explains the delays. This not only fits with Gillard's lower level of passion for foreign policy than Rudd, but hopefully also a recognition that the system Rudd established didn't work.

• Our thanks to environmental researcher and blogger Roger Pielke for including The Interpreter in his 2011 awards.
• Two think tanks look at what's ahead for Southeast Asia in 2012: CFR and CSCAP.
• Following Sam's post yesterday, China may struggle to boost its global cultural status.
• Talking to the Taliban: can they be divided from al Qaeda?
• International relations scholars increasingly cite and use blogs in their research and teaching.
• Walter Russell Mead argues Iran's actions 'looks like the defiance of a cornered animal rather than the insolence of a rising power'.
• ADFA cadets are protesting to reinstate the Commodore stood down over the Skype scandal.

• The Economist on the role of blogs in America's contemporary economic debate.
• Where are the best places (in the US) to study international relations?
• Why Gulf countries are becoming more concerned about food security.
• Buy, Build or Steal: A major new study on China's quest for advanced military aviation technology.
• In a related development, Taiwan is nervous about the military applications for China's new GPS equivalent. (Thanks Malcolm.)
• Indonesians have a new symbol in the fight for justice: sandals.
• Frontline has a new documentary on the US relationship with Pakistan.
• A new book on the anti-nuclear 'five horsemen', Kissinger, Shultz, Perry, Nunn and Drell.

• While the world watched North Korea, the first India-US-Japan trilateral talks were held.
• Foreign Policy lists 2011's most bone-headed prognosticators.
• Iran's currency plummets.
• What's it like to be a blogger in the Gulf Arab States?
• The US cuts its aid budget. (Thanks Danielle.)
• Linda Jakobson argues 'much has changed since the last Kim took over, but not in North Korea'.
• Can nations use their diaspora to achieve foreign policy goals? (Thanks Daniel.)
• A short clip on street kids, punk music and politics in Indonesia:

Since he's too modest to post it himself, here is Sam Roggeveen on Bloggingheads.tv: 

To help busy readers, I've pulled together a list of Lowy's best North Korea-related publications.

• Rory Medcalf in today's Australian on the chances of a peaceful succession.
• Fiona Cunningham yesterday argued that Kim's death won't reduce North Korea's attachment to nuclear weapons. Our thanks to Sullivan and RCW for linking to the piece.
• Sam Roggeveen notes that North Korea is a racialist, not Stalinist regime.
• Linda Jakobson on why the Six-Party Talks offer little hope.
• Rory Medcalf on the 'wicked' nature of Asia's nuclear insecurity, and North Korea's potential to destabilise US-China relations.
• Weathering Change: An e-book on extended nuclear deterrence in Asia.
• A two-part interview by The Interpreter with Zhu Feng on China's view of North Korea.
• Malcolm Cook and Andrew Shearer review the strategic implications of North Korea's sinking of the South Korean warship Cheonan in 2010.
• Michael Fullilove on China's conduct at the UN, especially regarding North Korea.
• Andrew Selth writes for The Interpreter on North Korea and its Burma nuclear links.
• Lowy intern Claudia He posts on China's relationship with North Korea and its fear of refugees.
• Dr Marcus Noland on North Korea's nuclear ambitions.
• Finally, chapter 5 (p.72) of Power and Choice: Asian Security Futures, examined the potential impact of a North Korean succession crisis/regime collapse:

Depending how the crisis evolved, and how key powers responded, a Korean strategic shock could contribute greatly to turning any of this paper's four scenarios – US or Chinese primacy, balance or concert – into a reality. Korea and what happens there could well prove to be the strategic pivot of Asia in the twenty-first century.

• Does Hedley Bull's 'The Great Irresponsibles?' label apply to the US and China today?
• PNG's political crisis explained. On the same blog, also check out this enlightening Twitter exchange.
• The escalating violence in Egypt.
• Raoul Henirichs answers questions from Diplomat readers about Australian defence policy.
• China is helping to bring South Korea and Japan together. (Thanks Malcolm.)
• Thailand's Lèse Majesté laws are back in vogue.
• Worst. Empire. Ever. Dan Drezner on America's poor economic investment in Iraq and Afghanistan.
• India's missed-call culture. (h/t Tyler Cowen.)
• The humour of Ban Ki-moon.
• As the Iraq war ends, a photo retrospective. It's somehow fitting that the departure of the last US forces should be recorded by a Predator drone:

While 2011 showed the power of the mob, both overthrowing Middle East dictators and catapulting China into great power status, the year was also one where machines increasingly shaped world politics. Three examples:

• Machines instead of workers: as Erik Brynjolfsson and Andrew McAfee argue in their popular e-book Race against the Machines, one good explanation for why the US is suffering such staggering unemployment, despite a rebound in company profits, is the increasing automation of employment. And it's not just manufacturing or physical labour but middle--class jobs (from sports writers to lawyers) being automated. Improvements this year such as driverless cars mean a whole new future for the transport industry, from military transport to taxis.
• Drones, the weapon of choice for 2011: drones helped bring down Osama Bin Laden, isolate Qadhafi, increasingly led the US war effort in Afghanistan, and surveillance over Pakistan and Iran. Journalists, police and protesters got in on the act too, leading to increasingly crowded skies and difficult moral debates. Watch for 2012 to be the year drones take to the ocean. Could make things very interesting in the South China Sea.
• Politics goes online: the West was too quick to celebrate the power of social media in 2009 during the Iranian uprising, but 2011, with the Arab Spring and #OccupyWallStreet, demonstrate the enduring political significance of these tools. Of course, as critics like Evgeny Morozov rightly point out in the The Net Delusion, in 2011 governments also began understand how to wield digital power. In the UK during the riots and Russia during the election, the net helped strengthen the hand of authority.

The increasing human reliance on machines is hardly a new story, but 2011 helps us glimpse some of the political and global implications of a digital society.

Photo by Flickr user runnerofnight.

Foreign Affairs is hosting a fascinating discussion on China's interaction with Western-established norms:

Ikenberry asks whether China will buy into the prevailing liberal, rule-based international order, which has been promoted and underwritten by the United States ("The Future of the Liberal World Order," May/June 2011). With regard to one key element of this order, however -- the Westphalian norm of sovereignty and nonintervention -- he might have inverted the premise. For here, the West has been seeking major modifications that weaken the norm, whereas China has championed the established rule and the international order based on it.

Ikenberry pushes back, suggesting progressive changes to the norm of sovereignty (humanitarian intervention, R2P etc.) actually pull China further into the international order:

China's disagreement with the responsibility-to-protect norm also needs be put in perspective: that norm represents only a tiny aspect of the larger set of global rules and institutions. Indeed, in pushing back against this norm, China is invoking other norms and ideas in the system -- most important, Westphalian ones about sovereignty. In doing so, China is being driven further into the existing international order. Moreover, the tension that exists within the international order between norms of state sovereignty and the responsibility to protect should not be surprising, and it is more of a virtue than a defect.

It's worth reading the whole thing. I can also recommend Ikenberry's initial essay, which costs $2.95 for a digital copy.

Photo by Flickr user Helen K.

• Wukan, a Chinese fishing village, is in open revolt.
• Speaking of which, Time's Person of the Year is The Protester.
• Gareth Evans says Malcolm Fraser is right to worry about proliferation, but that's no reason to leave India out in the cold.
• The Economist reports on an eyebrow-raising speech by Geoff Raby, who recently finished his posting as Australian ambassador to China. (Thanks Danielle.)
• Unusual political advertising in Indonesia. 
• A new World Bank research report on China and the world trading system.
• Yet more problems with the F-35 Joint Strike Fighter.
• A Dutch architectural firm has proposed this residential building, called 'the Cloud', for South Korea. Critics say it looks like the Twin Towers exploding.

• Beijing's air pollution goes off the charts.
• We may have linked to this one before, but it's worth highlighting again: The University of Hong Kong's China Media Project.
• Inside Saddam's regime: new tapes help shed light.
• Joseph S Nye on Obama's Asia pivot.
• Thirteen foreign policy stories that could dominate 2012.
• Iran may need external help to pull apart the US drone.
• Crikey's NAJ Taylor replies to Sam's post on our uranium debate.
• How do we know China is over-investing? Because it's throwing money at the wrong things, says Michael Pettis:

It is hard for me to be very optimistic that the success of electric cars in China will increase the wealth of the Chinese people. It seems to me that investment in high-prestige areas like electric cars, solar panels, and so on for technologically backward countries with low worker productivity may be a little like investment in the space program or in the Olympics. They may have positive political and even psychological returns, but on a strictly economic basis they reduce overall wealth and exacerbate domestic imbalances.

• Some fascinating detail about American intelligence cooperation with Pakistan.
• More on Vietnam: the Overseas Development Institute has been tracking Vietnam's remarkable economic progress. (Thanks Ryan.)
• North Korea turns north. (Thanks Malcolm.)
• Another data point on India's faltering economy: industrial output is shrinking. 
• Was 2010 the year of 'peak Putin'?
• Argentina is stirring up trouble in the Falklands again.
• The OECD explores income inequality worldwide. (h/t Sullivan.)

• A useful list of prominent Southeast Asian bloggers.
• Stephen Walt on 'Offshore Balancing', which Peter Beinart suggests is the real 'Obama Doctrine'.
• Weapons don't make war.
• The US Navy will use chicken fat for fuel as part of its 'Green Fleet' plan.
• One sign of rising nationalism? Animals that cross borders are arrested.
• The deep historical continuity of voting/ideological patterns.
• How not to behave when you attend a think-tank talk or lecture.
• The Red Cross risks trivialising international human rights law (IHL): 'there is an audience of approximately 600 million gamers who may be virtually violating IHL'.

• The next president of Iran?
• What would it take to end India's Maoist insurgency?
• The politics of the Thailand flood.
• Regular Interpreter contributor Andrew Selth has a new paper out about Burma and WMD.
• The origins and emergence of 'Indo-Pacific'.
• The Crisis Group on ending Myanmar's insurgency.
• A handy list of all Australian political blogs.
• A profound economic change has occurred in Africa, says the Economist.
• Google search terms can predict political behaviour.
• The Greek crisis explained:

The internet loves nothing more than a list and with the prospect of holiday reading upon us, book lovers are highlighting their favourites. Self-proclaimed 'infovore' Tyler Cowen lists his best non-fiction books for 2011. As does Foreign Policy, the New York Times, and The Guardian.

In a similar spirit, here are my best books for 2011:

• John Ikenberry, Liberal Leviathan.
• Henry Kissinger, On China.
• Richard Rumelt, Good Strategy/Bad Strategy.
• Steven Pinker, The Better Angels of our Nature: Why violence has declined.

We'd like to get your nominations for books of the year. Don't just stay with the big names; we're looking for great books (fiction and non-fiction) that explain and explore the world in all its facets, with a particular focus on this corner of it. Send us an email.

Photo by Flickr user pfala.

• Saudi Arabia stops claiming it will (can?) increase its oil supply.
• Finally, a use for Segways: target practice dummys.
• The National Interest's blog on Obama's clumsy China containment policy.
• Here comes the Thatcher boom: the Meryl Streep biopic will be out soon, and biographer Charles Moore has a long profile in Vanity Fair.
• Durban needs to entrench progress, rather than create new treaties.
• Was the European and North American boom dating from the 1990s worth it, given the current bust? In global terms, the returns still look good.
• Should investors follow Hillary Clinton into Myanmar?
• An interview with Qin Yaqing on the Chinese approach to studying IR.
• The OECD has a helpful but decidedly gloomy video on the global economic outlook:

• ASEAN is the flavour of the month.
• Estimating the wealth of Indonesia's trillionaires.
• Shadow Foreign Minister Julie Bishop suggests learning Asian languages should be mandatory. 
• Habermas bemoans the possible fall of his generation's project: a united Europe.
• Niall Ferguson threatens to sue after a heated review and debate of his latest book.
• The US is finding alternate ways to supply Afghanistan, as its relationship with Pakistan falters.
• First Libya, now Syria: Is the Arab League finding its voice?

• The more things change...US arms behemoth General Dynamics announces that it will build 125 new Abrams tanks for the Egyptian army.
• Kishore Mahbubani outlines Singapore's view of the US 'pivot'. (h/t WRM.)
• No one turned up to the Occupy Singapore protest. The activism is online instead.
• That incongruous Graham Greene reference in Tony Abbott's remarks last Thursday looks to have appeared first in Abbott's 2009 book, Battlelines, as Sunday Age International Editor Tom Hyland notes in this revealing piece about Abbott's worldview from January 2010.
• A wonderful mini-doco about 'the umbrella man', the one person in Dallas seen under an umbrella on the day Kennedy was killed. (Thanks Andrew.)
• The forgotten role of the 'United Nations' in defeating the Nazis.
• Post-Bay of Pigs plans by the US to invade Cuba.
• Japan to build a 'southern corridor' linking Vietnam and Burma, and thus Japan to India.
• Australian conscripts who went to Vietnam are 'half as likely to be still working as their peers born at around the same times'.

Responding to Matt Zurstrassen's questions, Reuben Hintz writes:

Based on this link, it appears that the US Marines headed to Darwin will not be coming from any specific locale; nor is there any direct link to the Okinawa to Guam relocation that has been on indefinite hiatus for several years now. Of course the more basing options in the region the Pentagon has, the more flexibility it has in negotiating future agreements with the Japanese and South Korean governments.

As for the question about the correlation between Asian countries' economic relationships with China and their security relationships with the US, it is very interesting that it appears to be essentially a negative one. Almost every country in the region now has China as their largest trading partner and this trend seems to be only accelerating. At the same time, in the last year nearly every country in the region, with the exception of North Korea, seems to be doing nearly everything it can to build a stronger political-military relationship with the US. The latest addition to this trend, to the surprise of almost everyone watching, seems to be the Myanmar government.

Japan and South Korea's success, at least so far, in balancing the two seemingly contradictory relationships is a much more difficult question. It is always dangerous to run to cultural stereotypes when the questions get difficult, but in discussions with other students and officials from Asian countries about this apparent contradiction between their economic and security relationships, it is always striking to me that they don't really see much of a contradiction at all. Then again, considering China is America's second largest trading partner, maybe we don't really see one either.

• The Arabist on the protests in Egypt.
• There will be no global climate treaty this decade. (H/t WRM.)
• A new e-book on the 'Responsibility to Protect' doctrine, including essays from Gareth Evans, Ramesh Thakur, and the Lowy Institute's Rodger Shanahan.
• On China, Obama and the Republicans find common ground. (Thanks Andrew.)
• An Atlantic Charter for the Asia Pacific?
• Rwanda is a tough country to understand. Here are ten reasons why. (Thanks Danielle.)
• Welcome to the era of big data, says The Economist, where information floods the world and helps us understand it.

A query from a reader that I'm hopeful some of the many expert readers of this blog can help answer. Matt Zurstrassen writes:

The media reaction to the announcement by the US president on an increased security emphasis on the region seems somewhat misguided, being focused purely on China's possible response. I'd be interested if any of the defense experts who do write regularly for the blog are able to address the two questions below:

1. What is the net effect for number of US troops based in the Pacific Rim region. My understanding is that agreements are in place for a significant draw down in troops from Okinawa in Japan, an increase in troops in Guam and now a small increase in Australia. I am not aware of any change in South Korea. Is it possible that the stationing of marines in Darwin is more a response to the pressure to move troops from Okinawa than any new policy focus by the US?
2. The media has made a strong link between the presence of US troops in Australia and potential impact on the economic relationship with China. Given both South Korea and Japan have both a large US military presence and significant trade links with China are there any lessons that can be learnt from their experiences on the correlation between these two issues, if any. 

Not sure how you can help, but I think they would be useful questions to explore.

• How ASEAN views New Zealand and why ASEAN is unlikely to become another EU.
• Indonesia is unwilling to join the Trans-Pacific Partnership, at least for the moment.
• End of the middle-class suburb: income inequality is literally changing the US landscape.
• A secret cable from Pakistan seeking US help to overthrow the military leadership.
• Authoritarianism does not explain China's economic success.
• The realist case for Obama's Asia policy.
• Why is Egypt helping the Syrian regime at the UN?
• Busan, South Korea, is about to host a huge conference on aid effectiveness. Will it make any difference? (Thanks Danielle.)

One of the oddest criticism of Gillard's move to sell uranium to India is that she is breaking with the non-proliferation approach of the Hawke and Keating governments, when actually it's the exact same strategy: trading uranium in return for influence in setting safety standards.

This (lucrative) approach, of selling uranium while insisting on world-class safety standards, is the reason Australia became 'a global champion of non-proliferation'. Without it, Australia's many other achievements — extending the Non-Proliferation Treaty, passing the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, undertaking the intellectual leg-work for global disarmament via the Canberra Commission and the International Commission on Nuclear Non-proliferation and Disarmament — would not have been possible.

While Australia has around 30-40% of the world's uranium supply, there are too many other suppliers for a ban by Australia to have a significant effect. India is a case in point. Should Australia ban uranium sales outright, as some critics want, our likely influence would be akin to New Zealand's. Our southern neighbour took a more principled stand in the 1980s on nuclear power, but has, undeniably, had significantly less effect on global proliferation norms and conditions than Australia.

That's not a function of size, but strategy. While the Prime Minister has argued the economic benefits, and Rory noted the security benefits, it is through deals like this that Australia, a remote middle power, can best influence non-proliferation standards worldwide.

Photo by the Uranium Energy Corp.