The 2012 Global Go-To Think Tanks Rankings were released last week, ranking the Lowy Institute again in the top 30 Global think tanks outside the US and fifth in Asia – its highest-ever ranking.

The only survey of its kind, the University of Pennsylvania's rankings take on the unenviable and unwieldy task of trying to identify, and then rank, the 6000-odd think tanks in the world (nearly 2000 of which are in North America – hence the methodology of ranking think tanks outside the US separately).

Each year since the rankings began in 2008, the process has been refined. There are still some idiosyncrasies, though: for example, in the first of two overall ranking lists (the first excludes US institutions while the second includes them), European think tank SIPRI comes second, after only Chatham House, while in the next list it ranks behind Chatham House, Amnesty International, Transparency International, the International Crisis Group, the German SWP, IISS and Bruegel.

Quibbles aside, the Lowy Institute continues to build its reputation as one of the most globally influential think tanks. Aside from its top-30 ranking, it achieves fifth place in Asia (its highest ever ranking), behind much older and more established institutions such as the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences and the Japan Institute of International Affairs.

In a bid to defend itself against congressional calls for cuts to the State Department budget, it appears State has recruited the star power of Michael Douglas. Douglas was quoted in Business Week yesterday saying:

Congress is way out of line,” Douglas told reporters. Diplomacy “takes a long time, it’s quiet, but it’s a lot cheaper than a war.

At the Lowy Institute, we've been saying that for a while. Our 2009 Diplomatic Deficit and this year's Diplomatic Disrepair reports have called for significant reinvestment in Australia's diplomatic network, run down after successive governments' inattention and under-resourcing. It’s a call that even the Secretary of the Department, Dennis Richardson, has cautiously welcomed, with testimony in Estimates last week:

To put it simply in a broad context I would agree with the general proposition that we are underdone in our international representation.

It appears that at least some in parliament agree, with the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade announcing last month an inquiry into Australia's overseas representation, focusing on the geographic location and spread of Australia's diplomatic posts, the appropriate level of staffing, the effect of ediplomacy and the activities at post.

While in Australia we have our own high profile foreign minister (although he's not quite Hillary), perhaps we too need to call in the star power to finally get some attention on Australia's languishing diplomacy.

Ideas, anyone?

Photo by Flickr user fredcamino.

AusAID Director-General Peter Baxter gave this week's Wednesday Lowy Lunch lecture, delivering a spirited defence of Australia's aid budget, which you can listen to here. While AusAID has endured criticism over inefficient use of costly external consultants, Mr Baxter pointed out that Australia's geopolitical circumstances warrant continued bipartisan support of a boosted aid program.

Mr Baxter took the time to give me a short interview after his speech, which you can listen to here:

(Ed. note: Apologies for sub-par audio quality; turn up your speakers!)

There must have been a heavy collective groan reverberating along the corridors of DFAT's RG Casey building earlier this week when Australia's diplomatic corps learned that the prime minister had personally spoken with the 14 year-old boy arrested in Bali for drug possession.

As a consular case, this boy's situation is delicate and complicated, in the context of the complex and sensitive bilateral relationship between Indonesia and Australia. Still in the throes of the live cattle trade debacle, this was one case which required kid gloves rather than jackboots. But it appears the government couldn't resist the opportunity for a bit of political point-scoring, possibly at the expense of the boy's future and at the risk of stretching the bilateral friendship even further.

The strain on DFAT from the increasing burden of its consular work has been a consistent theme in the past few years — not only from the Lowy Institute (for example, here, here and here) but in the media and from the department itself.

DFAT Secretary Dennis Richardson has raised it at successive Estimates hearings this year, referring to the increasing pressure on the consular area, and DFAT's Simon Merrifield pointed to a 60% increase in the number of active consular cases over the past five years. The department's incoming government brief to the Gillard Government in September last year made it crystal clear that DFAT's consular capacity was stretched to its limits:

Growing case complexity reflects increased community and government expectations of the services to be provided...the continuing growth in expectations of and demand for our services is now pushing strongly against our capacity limits.

Nobody could say the government wasn't warned. Yet this case sits in a long line of dubious government decisions on consular affairs which make the department's consular work almost impossible. 

In parliament yesterday the Labor member for Melbourne Ports, Michael Danby, tabled the report of the Joint Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade on DFAT's 2009-10 Annual Report.

In an unusual show of bipartisanship, both Mr Danby and the Liberal Shadow Minister for Defence Science, Technology and Personnel, Stuart Robert, called for increased Government support for Australia's beleaguered Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Referring to the Institute's earlier Diplomatic Deficit report and Diplomatic Disrepair, released yesterday, Mr Danby urged an inquiry to address Australia's small diplomatic footprint and the 'long-term relative decline in the funding of the department'.

Stuart Robert went further, naturally:

...the report (Diplomatic Disrepair) speaks of a broken department and a grossly inadequate diplomatic footprint with too few international posts and too many bureaucrats in Canberra...Less than a quarter of DFAT staff speak a second language and less than 10 per cent speak an Asian language...For a highly globalised country facing a more challenging external environment, Australia's diplomatic footprint remains too limited.

Hammering home his (and our) point, he says, twice:

...the Lowy report states: 'unless these deficiencies are remedied, our economic, political and security interests could be seriously jeopardised’.

It remains to be seen whether this rare moment of agreement translates into concrete support for Australia's run-down diplomatic infrastructure.

Photo by Flickr user Long Zheng.

My earlier post questioned the Government's decision to move the Australia Network tender decision away from the Department of Foreign Affairs and to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy. But that's process; there are also issues of substance.

There is the money, for a start. Reading the hyperbolic commentary, one would think the very modest Australia Network TV service was some sort of crown jewel. It's not.

We've often pointed out the strains on DFAT's budget, and its public diplomacy program has been eroded dangerously. The ten-year, $223 million Australia Network contract might sound lucrative, but the annual expenditure from this year will be less in real terms than at any time in the last ten years.

Our expenditure per capita on international broadcasting is far less than other major broadcasting nations, countries which have been investing heavily in broadcasting over the last decades with television and 24-hour news services to Asia. In the face of China's multi-billion dollar investment in its six-language CCTV service, Australia's broadcasting outlay looks pitiful.

What to make of the mess that the Australia Network tender process has become?

Yesterday, Liberal Senator Simon Birmingham, who has been assiduously probing the progress of Australia Network tender in Estimates hearings, moved that all the reports and briefings prepared by the 'assessment panel' (the evaluation board convened by DFAT to assess the tenders), and all correspondence between ministers and their respective departments about the tender, be presented to the Senate by 18 July.

Game on.

Just to back-track a bit. The Australia Network is the international television broadcasting service funded by the Department of Foreign Affairs to be Australia's 'voice' to the region. The tender document says the Australia Network is 'designed to present a reliable and independent voice in the Asia-Pacific region. It promotes Australia's engagement with the region by fostering public understanding of Australia, and presenting, through its programs, an Australian perspective on the world'.

The service is broadcast 24/7 to 45 markets in Asia, with a mix of news, current affairs, business, English language education, drama, documentaries, sport and children's programming.

The ABC's contract to deliver this service was due to expire in August this year. In late November 2010, the Minister for Foreign Affairs announced that the service would be put to open tender. This came after a year of intense speculation, with the incumbent ABC and aspiring Sky News both arguing their respective positions on the value of bringing the service to a competitive tender process.

By early June, the decision on the successful tenderer (due on 2 May) had still not been announced. Dennis Richardson, DFAT's Secretary, indicated in Estimates that the tender evaluation board had finalised its evaluation but that no recommendation had yet been made to the Minister. 

Shortly after, the Prime Minister and the Ministers for Foreign Affairs and Communications announced an extension to the ABC's contract. Furthermore, they said the decision on the tender would be referred to Cabinet, though it's become clear since that Communications Minister Stephen Conroy would lead the process. Unsurprisingly, there has been considerable scrutiny of this development across the media.

For my part, there are legitimate questions to be asked about why this decision is not to be taken by the Minister for Foreign Affairs on the advice of his Department.

Not much in the budget to get excited about for the beleaguered Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Australia's economy continues its seemingly inexorable growth trajectory, and our aid spending flourishes with an 11% increase in official development assistance  — around half a billion dollars — since last financial year, with a re-stated commitment to increase this to 0.5% of gross national income by 2015-16. Yet DFAT's revenue from government will fall another 6% this year (around $53 million), its overall agency resourcing shrinking by over $113 million.

Sorry to keep harping on about this, but it's disheartening to tell the same old story every second Tuesday in May. In the Budget Statements, the bean counters attribute some of the shrinkage to foreign exchange movements and amortisation arrangements, but the real killer is the 'savings measures agreed in the 2010-11 Mid year Economic and Fiscal Outlook'. These required the department to find $45.5 million in savings from its less-than $1 billion and already over-stretched operating budget.

The Portfolio Budget Statements shed little light on where the savings are supposed to be coming from.

The common perception of the diplomat is of a champagne-swilling elitist hobnobbing it on the cocktail party circuit.

Perhaps this is why, budget after federal budget, the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade gets such a drubbing. It's on again this year, with reports that DFAT's budget will be savaged again to save another $45 million or so. That means around 20 overseas positions (and more here in Australia) will be cut, and represents more than half of the Department's spending on consular services ($72 million last financial year).

Then along comes a crisis, like that in Cairo this week. And now we find those cocktail sippers hobnobbing it around Cairo airport in 'fluoro jackets bearing the message "Australian Embassy"...combing Cairo airport for Australians in trouble' (reported in The Australian yesterday; print only). DFAT has reinforced its small embassy in Cairo (six staff) with twenty more staff from around the region. It has organised an emergency flight a day for as long as the crisis requires.

But predictably, DFAT has come under fire for its management of the crisis. Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop said Australia lagged behind other countries in evacuating their citizens. DFAT is in good company when it comes to complaints about its response. Canada's DFAIT took it on the chin as well, despite having organised flights for Monday and Tuesday.

But how did Australia's response (and DFAT's performance) stack up, really? 

In a 2010 BBC survey, respondents in Egypt, Pakistan, Kenya and Turkey were asked how much they would miss the services of the BBC, CNN International, Voice of America or Al Jazeera. The Egyptian respondents said they would miss the BBC more than Al Jazeera.

So of course you would think the British Government would place a high priority on continuing to speak to the world through its revered international broadcaster, the BBC World Service. The same survey found that, of all British institutions (including the government, the armed services, and British foreign aid), it was the BBC (by far) which made respondents think more positively about Britain. 

Yet Britain's financial woes have permeated all levels of the public service, and the BBC World Service has not been immune. The full extent of the injury was evident when the BBC World Service announced funding cuts on Friday.

In the University of Pennsylvania's annual rankings of the world's top think thanks, released yesterday, the Lowy Institute achieved its highest-ever ranking: 27th in the top 50 think tanks worldwide (which excludes US institutions). The only other Asia-based think tank in the top 30 is the highly respected Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. The Brookings Institution in the US was ranked highest in the world, and the UK's Chatham House topped the list of worldwide (non-US) think tanks.

In what we see as a major achievement, the Lowy Institute was ranked in the top 10 in the world for its use of the internet to engage the public. We credit this to the Institute's creative use of the web through this blog (now with an iphone app), as well as with our newer Facebook and Twitter activities.

The survey is the only one of its kind, and while suffering in the past from some teething problems (some of them still evident – for example, while the Institute was one of only two Asian think tanks ranked in the worldwide category, we were eighth in the Asian category), it has increased in rigour and credibility.

The survey has a long list of questions, and a huge range (over 6000) of think tanks to choose from. Around 1500 policy makers, donors, researchers, journalists and NGO representatives participated in the survey. The earlier questions in the survey (top think tank in the US, top think tank worldwide) probably have a higher participation rate than those further down in the list (such as that regarding think tanks in the Asia region).

In a mark of its increasing renown and authority, this year's survey was launched at the UN in New York, with the cooperation of the United Nations University Office. In releasing the results, the University of Pennsylvania described the rise of think tanks in Asia:

This year's rankings reflect the increased recognition of think tanks in Asia and the Pacific, including the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences, Japan Institute of International Affairs, Lowy Institute for International Policy in Australia, Korea Development Institute in South Korea and Institute for Defense Studies and Analyses in India.

Image by Flickr user h.koppdelaney.

Thank you to all who contributed to The Interpreter over the last two weeks. I'm signing off as acting editor, and Sam is back in charge next week.

Some thoughts (or reading) for the weekend:

• World toilet day generated its fair share of toilet humour, but there is a serious message there, as pointed out by Greens Senator Rachel Siewert today: '2.6 billion people around the world lack access to basic sanitation ... Each year, more than 1.4 million children die as a result of unclean water and poor sanitation'.
• New CSIS report by Anthony Cordesman on what it will take to transfer security responsibility to the Afghan National Security Forces. 
• Satellite photographs published by Japanese newspaper Shankei Shimbun (reported by the Nuclear Threat Initiative and Korea Times) suggest that North Korea may be making preparations for a third nuclear test.
• Nuclear sales anomalies: Australia's ban on nuclear sales to India scrutinised; and its sales to Russia criticised. (With apologies for the delay).
• A new report by our colleagues over the ditch, the Asia:NZ Foundation, examines the 'untapped resource' of the New Zealand diaspora, one of the highest per capita of OECD countries. The third in a series of Asia:NZ reports on diasporas, this one looks at New Zealanders in China, Chinese in New Zealand, and returned Chinese migrants who once lived or studied in New Zealand. 

Photo by Flickr user Wiertz Sébastien, used under a Creative Commons licence.

• BBC musings on implications of Suu Kyi's release for jailed dissidents in China, and some on dissidents in Burma, from Simon Roughneen in the South China Morning Post.
• The Boston Globe on opportunities for the US.
• Views from Thailand, which has chosen the path of economic engagement with Burma rather than sanctions.
• Sarkozy claims credit for the release (note the last sentence).
• Under the deluge of news from Burma about the release of Aung San Suu Kyi, this was buried: ISIS (the Institute for Science and International Security), ProPublica and PBS cast doubt on the controversial claims in June about Burma's nuclear program (thanks to Andrew Selth)

Photo by Flickr user englishpen, used under a Creative Commons licence.

• Korea's JoongAng Daily reports that China has demanded through diplomatic channels that Korea not attend the Nobel Peace Prize ceremony honouring jailed dissident Liu Xiaobo. Reuters report says that Japan has received similar demands. France has said EU members will be there, ignoring China's threat that attending nations will 'have to bear the consequences'. (H/t Malcolm Cook and Michael Fullilove).
• New York Times features bloggingheads discussion about how to influence China on human rights abuses, touching on the idea of a social diplomacy solution. (H/t Fergus Hanson).  
• Incoming government brief for 111th Congress summarises key issues on principal proliferation control regimes for nuclear, chemical and biological weapons and missiles, from the Congressional Research Service.  Includes a useful table on which states are members of which regime (thanks to Martine Letts).
• Anand Gopal and New America Foundation release report on insurgency in Kandahar, 'The battle for Afghanistan', finding that 'The Taliban's resurgence in Kandahar post–2001 was not inevitable or preordained'. (H/t Natalie Sambhi).  
• Al Jazeera reveals North-Korea heir-apparent Kim Jong-un as a schoolboy in Switzerland. (H/t Rory Medcalf).

In response to Danielle Cave's post on the sophisticated e-diplomacy of Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, a journalist covering Secretary Clinton's visit to Papua New Guinea writes:

... as you pointed out, it almost seems like a case of her chasing you?

[This is] a good example of just how organised her people are, and also just how focused they, and she, were on staying 'On Message'.

According to the time stamp in the original, [a] nine page missive was sent out to media in Port Moresby, marked for immediate release, midday on the 3rd of November, at least four hours before Secretary Clinton's plane landed. It contain[ed] all her talking points during a mangrove plantation visit, the remarks she was going to make in a radio interview, already framed as a particular response to the interviewer's questions, and what she had, or would (it gets confusing) say in a press conference, which was yet to be held.

Spin central.

Photo by Flickr user camil_t, used under a Creative Commons licence.

• this story about a mystery missile off the California coast popped up on BBC earlier today (h/t Matt Hill).
• New York Times observes China upping the ante on the US, wooing Indonesia with massive infrastructure investments on the eve of the Obama visit yesterday (h/t Andrew Shearer).
• The Asia Foundation has released the results of its 2010 Afghan opinion poll, finding 47 per cent of 6,467 Afghan respondents thought their country was moving in the right direction, up from 42 per cent in 2009.

If a picture is worth a thousand words, what to make of this photograph (the second one down the page) of Hillary Clinton, Kevin Rudd and Stephen Smith?

• 'Damn right!': George W Bush says waterboarding saved UK lives, in an interview published in The Times today
• Despite being one of the most consequential Australia–US security discussions in years, a search of the US media (print and broadcast) found nothing on AUSMIN today, although the State and Defense departments give it equal top billing on their home pages. Maybe I'm being impatient ...

On a lighter note —

• The Washington Note likens Jeb Bush's chances as the Grand Old Party's nominee for the 2012 Presidential elections (against Romney, Huckabee, Palin and Gingrich) to the famous win-from-way-behind racehorse, Silky Sullivan
• Apropos of the GOP's choices: The Daily Dish serves this up to the Tea Party (viewers beware, the MADtv clip pushes the boundaries)
• In the lead–up to the 18th APEC Economic Leaders' Meeting this weekend, Foreign Policy's 'silly shirt review'

Early last Friday, video footage of the September 7 collision between the Japan Coast Guard and a Chinese fishing boat was leaked on Youtube by a user known only as Sengoku38. While this account is now closed, the videos themselves are still accessible (thanks to Joel Rathus for the links), and have been reported widely in the mainstream media. But the story told by these pictures is not always clear cut: some of the footage suggests (to me, at least) that the Japanese vessel may have mismanaged at least one part of the encounter (see clip No. 5). Others (eg No. 6) suggest an error, or aggression, by the Chinese fishing boat.

The collisions are in clips No. 4 to 6. The others provide some interesting context.

No. 1: Shows the Japanese vessel manoeuvring to head off the Chinese fishing boat:

No. 2: Shows the fishing vessel pulling in its fishing nets, presumably to illustrate that the Japanese vessel observed the maritime rule that a vessel engaged in fishing has right of way over other power vessels:

No. 3: Close–up footage of the Chinese boat bringing in its fishing nets:

No. 4: Shows the Japanese vessel circling the Chinese boat, which, cut off, apparently rams it in the stern (the collision is at 2:15 minutes into this clip):

No. 5: Is this another collision? Note the siren is sounding in this clip, which is missing from the previous clip. The Japanese vessel appears to be trying to head off the Chinese boat. Whatever the reason, a collision results:

No. 6: And another perspective: this one sees the Japanese vessel changing course to come alongside the Chinese boat, which then appears to accelerate and strike the Japanese vessel:

The incident, and in particular China’s indignant response to Japan's arrest of the fishing captain, has had wide geopolitical repercussions. It is widely believed to have bolstered Japanese public support for the US-Japan security alliance and to have contributed to a perceived pattern of Chinese maritime assertiveness this year, which in turn has driven balancing behaviour by other some Asian states and Washington. It remains to be seen whether public access to this footage alters the debate at all.

So while the bean counters over there at Finance are licking their chops at the prospect of emasculating Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs by docking it for promoting free trade, the EU is busy with the task of taking foreign affairs seriously.

According to reports yesterday, the EU's new foreign service, the European External Action Service, will have a staff of 7000, an annual budget of £5.8 billion (that's, erm, A$9.3 billion), and 137 embassies. Don't forget, all the individual EU nations have their own foreign services already (the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office, for example, has around 4800 diplomats, a budget of £2 billion or so and around 250 posts).

Australia, which is an actual country, has 89 embassies/posts, a staff of around 2200, and a perpetually shrinking operating budget of around $1200 million — or considerably less, if you take off the inspired Finance Department penalties for wickedly depriving the Commonwealth of revenue from tariffs.

Reaction to the EU's aggressive global stance has been predictably sceptical, at a time when EU budgets are growing while individual EU members are hurting.

But worth thinking about, when one of the world's more economically and strategically powerful blocs demonstrates how vigorously it intends to pursue its foreign policy.

Photo by Flickr user y.caradec, used under a Creative Commons licence.

The last century saw technological change of an unprecedented scale and pace. With massive developments in communications mobility, on-demand content, processing power, and realistic technology like 3-D and holography, the pace of change is not expected to slow.

In last week's Wednesday Lowy Lunch, Telstra's Chief Technology Officer Professor Hugh Bradlow reviewed the impact of information and communications innovations on human behaviour and global economic prospects — and looked at the implications for Australia's competitive future.

You can listen to Professor Bradlow's speech here; he reviews his major themes in our five-minute interview below:

Photo by Flickr user JonJon2k8, used under a Creative Commons license.

In response to my post on the powers of the President of Timor-Leste, an Interpreter reader has pointed out that in addition to the powers referred to in that post (for which the President has sole competence or requires only consultation with government before exercise), the President has further, and possibly quite potent powers:

• to declare war, peace and states of siege or emergency, under authorisation of National Parliament and after consultation with the Council of State and the Supreme Council of Defence and Security (sections 85 and 87(d))
• to conduct, in consulation with the Government, any negotiation process towards the completion of international agreements in the field of defence and security

Says our reader:

The implication of this, which seems to have been overlooked in media commentary, is that it would be perfectly reasonable for a foreign government to contact President Ramos-Horta to initiate negotiations on a security or defence agreement.  It would then be incumbent on the President to pursue the negotiations in consultation with Prime Minister Gusmao and his government. 
 
I'm not suggesting this security/defence provision is necessarily relevant in the context of asylum-seekers.  As a matter of process, though, it's interesting that Prime Minister Gusmao seems to have asked President Ramos-Horta to continue the discussions with Australia on a regional processing centre for now.  Section 87(d) just seemed to me a slightly stronger example of how misplaced the representation of Ramos-Horta as a ceremonial president is, and how characteristically tongue-in-cheek Ramos-Horta was being at the National Press Club in his comments about cutting wedding cakes and ribbons.

Photo by Flickr user presidencymaldives, used under a Creative Commons license.

Now that the commotion over the so-called 'Timor Solution' has subsided somewhat, time for a small (some might say petty) clarification.*

In the uproar over the new PM's eleventh hour approach to José Ramos-Horta to request his country's accommodation of a regional refugee processing centre, most commentators dismissed the approach as a diplomatic 'gaffe', owing to Ramos-Horta's lack of powers as President. Generally, these powers were pronounced by all and sundry as 'largely ceremonial' (for example, The Daily Telegraph, Brisbane Times, and Sydney Morning Herald). One academic went so far as to tell ABC’S Lateline that:

He has no actual authority to make decisions. His role is entirely ceremonial. And so it's like talking to Quentin Bryce, our Governor General, she's a ceremonial head and Horta is in a similar position.

A look at the Timor-Leste constitution demonstrates that this is all pretty sloppy stuff. Unlike Australia's constitutional system, Timor-Leste chose for itself a semi-presidential system 'where there is a balance between the powers of the organs of sovereignty'. The position of President is somewhat more powerful, then, than that of our Governor-General:

• the President of Timor-Leste is directly elected by the East Timorese (section 76). Ramos-Horta obtained 69 per cent of the vote against Francisco Guterres in 2007
• the President has a right to veto any statutes (section 85(3))
• s/he has the right to grant pardons and commute sentences
• s/he chairs the Council of State and the Supreme Council of Defence and Security, appoints the President of the Supreme Court, the Prosecutor-General, five members of the Council of State and two for the Supreme Council of Defence and Security.

Both Ramos-Horta and Gusmao (the two Presidents of Timor-Leste since its independence) have (modestly?) downplayed their roles at times. read more

After being reminded of PJ Keating's 'arse end of the world' comment while watching 'Hawke' on TV on Sunday night, I thought I'd find out how interested the rest of the world was in its arse's latest election.

Warm to middling, as it turns out. Media searches show that while the major news agencies and online services covered the story (1012 words from Xinhua News Agency were widely used on its online news service, for example here, and here), there was less in the printed press.

The New York Times and Los Angeles Times each ran a short paragraph. The UK's Mail was quick to claim the PM as a Welsh woman and Brit in its online article, and The Guardian ran a very brief piece in print and more online. The Scots ran a print piece on page 32 of the Sunday Herald. The Chicago Tribune ran a few lines in its world section and picked up the Welsh angle in its online version. India's Statesman ran 500 words in print and and more online.  The Wall Street Journal only ran it online, as did the UK Times (subscription only). The News of the World had a one-liner in its world news mash-up on page 29 under the marvellous heading 'Puff baddie's store stick-up on oxygen'.

On this highly scientific analysis, Australia's rightful place in the world's anatomy remains anyone's guess.

Photo by Flickr user tochis, used under a Creative Commons licence.

• Walter Russell Mead agrees with Time's Joel Klein and Fidel Castro that war between the US and Iran is increasingly likely (but not ncessarily for the same reasons)

• David Frum, influential US conservative commentator, former George W. Bush speechwriter and now blogger and sometime guest editor of Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, has called for a new 'mission' for American Republicanism in which he advocates a 'peaceful American-led world order' — this led to some agitated conservative responses and a subsequent explanation

• A New York Times piece compares 1920s photographs of Himalayan glaciers with shots taken this decade — illustrating a point Milton Osborne made back in February about the IPCC Himalayan claims debacle and the stark realities of glacier retreat

As Sam pointed out earlier today, Julia Gillard's 'East Timor Solution' to the asylum-seeker issue is far from a done deal.

President Ramos-Horta of East Timor issued this statement this afternoon. It's critical stuff, diplomatically couched:

Dili, 06 Jul (PPR): President José Ramos-Horta, Nobel Peace Prize Laureate, spoke yesterday on the phone with Australian Prime Minister Julia Gillard.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard discussed with President José Ramos-Horta the issue of illegal asylum seekers and people smuggling.

Prime Minister Julia Gillard expressed her desire to see a regional arrangement where by individuals would be processed, treated with respect and dignity.

At a function a week or so ago which launched a new Soft Power and Public Diplomacy project at Macquarie University, I discovered that the international promotion and marketing function of Australia Education International was to be transferred, with little  fanfare, to Austrade.

Why is this significant? Or even interesting?

AEI had a busy year last year. Indian students crisis. Private international school scandals and closures. AEI's handling of these crises may not have been optimal. In a blog post last year, I was somewhat critical of its efforts at public diplomacy in a year which saw Australia's lucrative education industry lurch from one crisis to the next.

Yes, education is Australia's third largest export, bringing over $18 billion into the country last year, second only to our coal and iron ore exports.  And yes, AEI could have handled things better. Yet under AEI's marketing stewardship, Australia's international education enrolments have increased on average 11 per cent each year since 2002. According to experts in the University sector, including the Deputy Vice-Chancellor, Development and External Relations, at Macquarie University, AEI has developed good relationships with education partners here and overseas. The shift of responsibility implies that AEI is being punished in some way for the collapse in Australia's reputation for international education.

Yet it would be overly simplistic to suggest that this collapse was only of AEI's making.  read more

Interesting discussions last week at the Senate Estimates hearings on the Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade portfolio. One of the key interrogators, Senator Trood, has confirmed our view that our diplomatic services are perilously close to critical condition.

In an ABC interview with Monica Attard last month, the new Secretary of DFAT, Dennis Richardson, called the under-resourcing of his department 'the great hangover', a reference to 'the contraction in the size of the department between the early 90s and 2008'. While the Australian publlic service grew by around 25-30 per cent from 1996-2008, he told Ms Attard, DFAT shrank by 11 per cent. Richardson used the evocative 'hangover' metaphor again in Estimates last week.

A figure Mr Richardson could have referred to, but didn't, was the shrinkage in Australia's overseas representation, which plummeted from 870 Australia-based staff overseas in 1989 to 537 in 2009, according to DFAT annual reports. That's a very ill-looking 38 per cent dismemberment. Right at a time of rapid globalisation. As Ms Attard queried, 'can you continue to pursue the Prime Minister's objectives like the Asia Pacific community by 2020 with that sort of money?'

More importantly, can DFAT perform even its most basic functions with that sort of money? 

John Hannoush writes in response to my post:

Is it reasonable to assume that number of overseas missions is a reliable indicator of diplomatic efficacy? Maybe Iceland or Finland are being a bit wasteful. A targeted approach might work better: for example, we could use as an indicator numbers of staff working in countries of high priority. If we were significantly cutting staff numbers at the Washington mission, for example, that would presumably be of concern.  If we decided to get rid of the mission to the Holy See and accredit from Brussels, that might not be of such moment.

Good point. At the time of the Blue Ribbon Panel report, around 40% of Australia's posts overseas were small posts, a number which has grown sharply since 2000. With the best of intentions, staff at small posts often struggle to meet the most basic commitments, and if accredited to more than one nation, there's little scope for much beyond the minimum required to maintain formal diplomatic relations.

Our argument, though, is that we need more diplomats overseas, and not simply a shuffle between posts. In the face of budget pressures, the simplest solution is often to cut overseas posts because they are costly to maintain.

There's no joy in the budget for Australia's diplomacy. The deficit we reported last year and reiterated this year continues unabated.

There's been a modest increase, as Hamish McDonald termed it this morning. The Departmental appropriation is up to $1.328 million, $83 million more than last year (or a 6.7% increase). The Department's administered expenses (programs which it oversees but lacks ultimate control, such as the funding of the Australia Network and the running of the Shanghai Expo) fell by around $100 million.

But the real picture is much more complex. Australia still has the fifth lowest number of embassies overseas of all OECD nations (even Finland and Iceland have more). The number of our diplomats overseas was almost halved between 1989 and 2009. There are no signs of the 75 new staff overseas or 20 new missions over ten years which we recommended last year to raise Australia's diplomatic representation to a more competitive level.

The 2008-9 operating budget (excluding those administered expenses) was $1.1 billion, but this was stripped to $893 milion when programs and resources were pared back during the year. The 2009-10 budget was $1.2 billion, and that was about what was spent (but only after cuts of over $100 million over the next four years were announced back in November, taking back half of the boost heralded in the budget). On this sort of track record, this year's meagre injections look decidedly shaky.