{"id":36087,"date":"2025-11-21T12:30:02","date_gmt":"2025-11-21T01:30:02","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.internationalaffairs.org.au\/?post_type=australianoutlook&p=36087"},"modified":"2025-11-26T10:16:05","modified_gmt":"2025-11-25T23:16:05","slug":"a-world-disrupted","status":"publish","type":"australianoutlook","link":"https:\/\/www.internationalaffairs.org.au\/australianoutlook\/a-world-disrupted\/","title":{"rendered":"A World Disrupted"},"content":{"rendered":"\n

On 17 November, the AIIA held its 2025 National Conference. AIIA CEO Dr Bryce Wakefield delivered the opening speech to the conference. Other keynotes, including by Foreign Minister Senator the Honourable Penny Wong and AIIA National President Dr Heather Smith PSM FAIIA are available here<\/a>.\u00a0\u00a0<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Ladies and gentlemen, excellencies, fellows, members, distinguished guests, colleagues, friends, <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Welcome to the AIIA National Conference 2025. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Those of you who have been with us over the years probably understand that I felt a certain temptation when preparing these remarks. As I sat down to write the opening to this conference, the phrase that sprung–almost unbidden–to mind is:  <\/p>\n\n\n\n

\u201cHere we go again.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because indeed, here we go again. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

In previous years we have gathered to consider themes such as Facing Fragmentation<\/em> and Navigating the Polycrisis<\/em>. Each time, the message has been unsettlingly similar: the global systems upon which Australia\u2019s security and prosperity depend are under strain. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But this year–this year feels different.<\/em> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

The arrival of a second Trump administration has ushered in a set of dynamics that are more pointed, more chaotic, and more consequential than before. We are witnessing a  dismantling of global trade norms, a loosening of U.S. commitments to multilateral systems, and a hesitancy–sometimes an outright ambivalence–toward supporting Ukraine, which continues to fight not only for its own survival, but for the core principles of sovereignty and territorial integrity that underpin global order. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

At the same time, the administration\u2019s embrace\u2014both domestically and internationally\u2014of what can only be described as a politics of grievance<\/em><\/strong> is reshaping conversations about alliances, values, and responsibilities. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

These are not simply shifts in tone. They are arguably shifts in order, and they demand that we think more seriously than ever before about what global order means, what it will become, and how Australia might both adapt to and influence the systems now emerging. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This is the heart of our theme this year: \u201cA World Disrupted: Australia and Global Reordering.\u201d<\/strong> <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Because we find ourselves not just observing disruption \u2026 
we are living within it. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Most imaginings of the future assume a world that is smaller, harder, bleaker. A world of competing blocs, contested norms, and diminishing cooperation. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And yet\u2014there are voices who see not only peril, but possibility. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

One of them is the U.S.-based scholar Amitav Acharya, who suggests that a more multipolar, more fragmented system is not inherently negative\u2014particularly for middle and smaller powers. He reminds us that smaller states have always contributed to the construction of global norms and rules. In his view, fragmentation may open new space for creativity, agency, and coalition-building among states that are not great powers. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Similarly, Singaporean diplomat Bilahari Kausikan argues that Southeast Asian nations are well accustomed to dealing with an America that is sometimes unreliable. For him, Trump does not represent chaos, but what might be called an \u201covert continuity of unreliability\u201d<\/strong>\u2014merely a more visible form of dynamics the region has long managed. And, he suggests, Europeans\u2014who he characterises as treating NATO as a kind of geopolitical crutch<\/em>\u2014could learn from Southeast Asia\u2019s more flexible approach. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Australia, too, might learn something here, particularly as we once again commit ourselves to the elusive but essential goal of improving our Asia capability. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

There is also an alternate view\u2014one less optimistic about global order but perhaps more sanguine from a narrowly national perspective. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This view suggests that while the erosion of order is damaging globally, Australia might, in fact, ride out the disruption<\/strong> reasonably well. I\u2019ve written in Australian Outlook<\/em> that Donald Trump does not spend much time thinking about Australia. That reality\u2014however one interprets it\u2014does leave space for the dense network of mechanisms, bureaucratic relationships, military cooperation platforms, and people-to-people ties that make up the Australia\u2013U.S. alliance to continue functioning beneath the political surface. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

And of course China<\/strong> remains a central factor. U.S.\u2013China competition continues to harden, yet China\u2019s own relationships, economic headwinds, and ambitions are also shifting. What emerges from this will profoundly shape the contours of any new order. For Australia, managing this complex triangle\u2014our largest trading partner, our principal strategic ally, and our own national interests\u2014will remain one of the defining tasks of our foreign policy. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

On Order<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n

So what do we mean when we talk about order? <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Order is not only the absence of chaos. It is the presence of predictability<\/strong>, institutions<\/strong>, norms<\/strong>, and\u2014crucially\u2014trust<\/strong>. For seven decades, Australia benefited profoundly from a system largely built and underwritten by the United States. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

But the emerging landscape will not look like the post-war order. 
 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor like the unipolar moment. 
 <\/p>\n\n\n\n

Nor even like the first Trump presidency. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

We are in a phase where the foundations themselves are unsettled. We are not merely adjusting to new rules; we are watching the rules being rewritten. <\/p>\n\n\n\n

This raises urgent questions: <\/p>\n\n\n\n