The 2009 lecture series, A Very Australian Conversation is presented by General Peter Cosgrove AC MC (ret'd). General Cosgrove's 40 years of military experience and service to the nation places him in a unique position to talk about the challenges and opportunities faced by society today and into the future. He will talk about things like national security, the wars we chose to be in and those we were asked to be in; our regional relationships and our leadership abilities both as a nation and as individuals; the political and sociological changes over his lifetime, and a future we might aspire to—one which will challenge our descendants.
transcriptPeter Cosgrove: Good afternoon ladies and gentlemen. Several months ago when the ABC invited me to be the 2009 Boyer lecturer, after I got over the shock I started to digest both the honour and the responsibility of what I had accepted to do. It struck me that while I had had some quite diverse experiences in life, obviously mostly related to my time in uniform, I have always regarded myself as very much an Australian 'everyman' by both background and inclination. Accordingly I have entitled the lectures I will give within the Boyer series as 'a very Australian conversation'. Today in this first lecture I will stick close to my knitting and address the subject of national security. In subsequent lectures, I will speak on Australia's regional relationships, leadership the Australian way and a lecture each on sociological changes over my lifetime and on those great political issues which I think resonate with the common man (ie me!). I will finish the series by gazing into a personal crystal ball to describe a future which we might aspire to and which will challenge our descendants. I am honoured to join you today and I look forward to joining you again over the next five Sundays.
[...]
National Security can rarely be seen as an absolute state—it exists as a continuum of cost versus benefit: how much are we prepared to endure or pay or concede or surrender to achieve a particular state of security.
National security can also be conceived to operate on two planes: perceptions of security and security measured empirically or objectively. If armed, hostile men are kicking down your front door at home then your perceptions of insecurity are likely to coincide with your empirically based security. Perceptions meet reality!
There are also though two further measures we might apply: first, challenges to our security through affronts solely to our values and secondly, physical threats to our safety and sovereignty.
If we organise our thoughts this way on national security questions, it is attractive intellectually but the reality is always more complex and frustrating. There are always going to be nuanced cases we could discuss such as illegal immigration but that's not all. For example using this logical approach I can mount a case that the Asian tsunami in late 2004 had security implications for Australia, as many would argue so does severe climate change effects in our region. You would find more than a few people who would even raise the security aspects of severe social issues with our remote indigenous communities.
All good debating stuff! Let's be more pragmatic!
thought this might be of interest. excuse me now. i need to read the transcript to form an opinion.
