A Bull in a China Shop

 Abbott has not blindly followed the United States into war in Iraq or in applying sanctions against Russia. Instead his rhetoric has consistently been out in front of the Obama Administration's official line. On both fronts, Abbott has been eager to get into these brawls. Like his days as a student he's loud mouthed and loves posturing.

rationale for picking fights in Eastern Europe and the Middle East and making better friends of Japan, India and NATO fails the strategic interests test. Especially when cast against the fact that Australia's relationship with Indonesia has taken such a beating since the Abbott Government came to power.
Adam Lockyer is a senior lecturer in security studies at Macquarie University.

 At its core, there is little practical difference between Abbott's foreign policy doctrine and that of the neo-conservative moment that characterised George W Bush's presidency. Both believe that democracy and Western liberalism are the superior organisational principles of society and these values should be defended around the world, by force if necessary.
 Abbott's neo-conservative policy doctrine is potentially extremely dangerous to Australia's interests. In his book Battlelines, Abbott pondered war with communist China, arguing that:

Led by America, most of the world would reject any attempt by China forcibly to reclaim Taiwan. In Australia's case, this would not be choosing America over China but democracy over dictatorship.

 Abbott is a true believer in the notion that Australia's security can best be found in a favourable global order. That is, the global dominance of Western values, in general, and individualism, capitalism, liberalism and democracy, specifically. To that end, any challenge to these Western values must be fiercely resisted, whether it is from Islamists in the Middle East or authoritarian regimes in Russia or China.
   So Australia's "best friend in Asia" is Japan being the Asian country believed to be the most Westernised - in a cultural and ideological sense.
 Abbott has spoken at length about India's shared values with Australia and that it is "not only the emerging democratic super power. It's also the emerging English-speaking super power."
 This week Australia will become one of NATO's "enhanced partners". This move is designed to tie Australia even more closely with countries that share its values and ideology.
In reality the threat of the Islamic State to Australia has been exaggerated. The Australians fighting with the Islamic State are not a defence matter, but an intelligence and policing responsibility. Indeed, sweeping up returning Australian jihadists at the airport is what we pay ASIO for.
The building of a tight coalition of democracies across the Indo-Pacific region to begin the "soft" containment of China is in India's and Japan's interests not ours Unlike India or Japan, Australia does not share a border or have territorial disputes  with China.
The real political reality is  geographical - not cultural - proximity matters more to a countries' security. In Australia's case, that is first and foremost Indonesia and the countries of maritime South-East Asia. The immediate region should be considered Australia's area of primary strategic importance. Wider regional and global considerations are a distant second and third. However Abbott sees little relevance in China's influence over the Pacific Region and it's nations cutting the ABC's budget so it's no longer the primary broadcaster for the region. Xinhua  China's international broadcaster now is. If China crossed India's frontier do you really think Abbott would send troops? He wants to sell Coal Uranium  is the honey