¶ … Australia should remain neutral, as far as its own territorial integrity and population are not threatened by the conflict. If it does intervene, it would be an intervention in a regional conflict and choosing sides would be a very difficult thing. The best choice would be to attempt a mediation between the belligerents.
Australia should intervene to the degree to which the problems in the failing states risk to spill over and affect the order in Australia as well. At the same time, the military and the authorities should intervene in order to avoid any humanitarian crisis and to properly regulate the flow of refugees, including those that might try to get into Australia.
The problem with private military firms would be that, as any private business, the main goal of such a firm would need to be, from an economical perspective, profit maximization. The questions that would thus arise are how such a company can make profit. The answers would tie in the government, but, at the same time, the private firm option would need to be more financially and economically efficient than sending in national armies.
4. A demilitarized Japan has successfully functioned in the Far East ever since the end of World War II and there is no reason to change this status quo. A remilitarized Japan, as the pre-war experience has shown, will only risk creating a state of tension in the region. The situation is not that dramatic and the relationship with the U.S. continues to remain a strategic one for Japan. Withdrawing support in the Middle East does not necessarily imply that Japan is reconsidering its strategic partnership: the coalition there was called "the coalition of the willing," so it functions based on volunteering country.
You’re 83% through this paper. Sign up to read the full paper.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.