Roy Morgan has just released an interesting poll that looks at the public perceptions of which countries are considered to be Australia’s biggest security threat. It was a phone poll run from a relatively small sample size of 687 people aged 14+, and as a result has a maximum MoE of around the 3.7% mark. However, because the proportions we’re looking at here are generally in the range of between 5% and 30% for any given answer (at least the one’s we’re going to look at today), that gives us an MoE range on each particular response of between around 1.6% and 3.4%, making it a little more solid than it ordinarily might appear.
Roy Morgan Research asked the question:
In your opinion are there any countries which are a threat to Australia’s security? If Yes, Which countries?
Respondents were allowed to give more than one answer – this was the result:
Indonesia was perceived to be highest with 20% naming that country as a security threat to Australia, followed by Iraq and Afghanistan. A total of 39% of the respondents thought that no country was a security threat to Australia.
More interesting though, is when we take some of the more nominated countries and look at their breakdown by State.(click to expand)
The mainland states all had Indonesia as the most popular security threat except Tasmania, where it wasn’t perceived to be a security threat at all. Maybe that’s just a function of the distance between Tasmania and Indonesia, maybe it’s a result of the inevitable small sample size of Tasmania in the poll (with a total sample of 687 aged 14+, we’d expect the Tasmanian sub-sample to be around the 16 or 17 respondent mark)
[I've since been told the Tassie sub-sample is a little higher than that for this poll]
If it’s the former, it’s interesting – if it’s the latter, just forget about it! 
Similarly, the Tasmanians named Arab/Middle Eastern countries at over twice the rate of mainland states.
Looking now at how the perception on a number of countries has changed over time (Morgan has been running this poll for 27 years) is also worth a quick squiz
(There were polls in both May and June of 1989, probably over Tiananmen Square)
The perception of Indonesia as a security threat has slowly been growing over the period, while Russia started to decline at the end of the Cold War. Japan had a bit of a security threat resurgence in the late eighties before slumping, while China has been growing since the mid to late eighties.
The most interesting thing about the poll however, was the age breakdown of the that believed that no country was a security threat.
The naivety of yoof perhaps, maybe the paranoia of age – but it’s interesting that the older a person is, the more likely they are to believe that other countries pose a security threat to Australia.
The poll has breakdowns by voting intention (no real difference between ALP and Coalition voters) and all sorts of other stuff as well.It’s worth a squiz.
21 Comments
There’s two “1989″ labels on the x-axis of the change-over-time chart.
It is interesting that the significant democratic reforms in Indonesia don’t seem to have made an impact on perceptions.
Also: We are clearly not yet alert to the New Zealish threat!
Apparently there were two polls taken in 1989 – one month apart.
In May and June.
Strange I know! But who am I to argue! I better add an explanation in the post though.
Would be interesting to see if the numbers can be analysed according to what the respondents typically used as the main source of information: eg The Terrorgraph, the Web etc. I’m sure there’ll be some clues there!
Ah yes Singha, but do we *really* want to know!?!
Hmmmm… I really don’t think we’ve got much to worry about as far as Lebanon goes… Do they have an aircraft carrier I wasn’t told about?
June 4 1989 was the day of the Tiananmen Square massacre. I guess the second survey in 1989 was in response to that. Interesting to see the jump in the level of perceived threat posed by Japan in 1989 as well – I remember the anti-Japanese investment hysteria being whipped up in the media at the time.
I’m with the no threat – anyone who thinks there is a threat (even from “terrorists”), is just plain paranoid.
6
Lebanon would fall into the ‘terrorists’ category for security threats. I would assume that a fair amount of Jewish people would regard Hezbollah as a significant threat to the security of both Israel and the wider world.
I’ve updated the time series – by popular demand – to now more accurately reflect time. It’s also in columns rather than lines.
Well, if you believe in Fourth Generation warfare hypothesis then the idea that we are not threatened by any specific country is not much comfort, as 4G warfare posits that the next move in warfare will be dominated by non state entities (from terrorist groups to corporations) rather then the traditional state dominated system we all know and love.
What do we define as a threat, I wonder? Is it a country who could attack us or a country which could pose a serious threat to our state? If the latter, well the only country in Asia which could seriously threaten us is China (if they had the desire and a greater logistical capacity) as we still remain the dominant military power in South East Asia. Indonesia poses very litle military threat so long as we maintain our air and naval superiority, even if they had a reason to be aggressive towards us. Which they don’t, quite a good relationship really. Apart from that little bit of unpleasantness over East Timor.
I think it would be worth distinguishing between ‘any threat at all’ and ’significant threat’ with this sort of question. Looked at over the sweep of history Australia is surely at a low threat risk compared to most countries throughout the ages. I wonder if this survey would have a different result if people were asked to think about other nations being a realistic threat in the next five years, or something similar. So much can and does change over a relatively short period, even geopolitically (eg. teh globas financial crisis), it might be a more realistic way to frame this, to prevent what I would call the “Monday’s expert’s” approach.
Threat seems to be framed in fairly traditional terms and why would it not be framed this way. However, if climate change wreaks the sort of damage that might be extrapolated some time in the future (Greenland ice sheet goes = 5 metres sea height gain; Actic ice = 7 metres gain). Add in the temperature gain in the world’s oceans and we’re looking at a spot of bother at the very least.
H.S. Organs post has made me think of a way we can both deter any future state threats and solve climate change at the same time! In a simple three point plan:
1) Resolve to have 80% of Australian energy provided by nuclear power by 2040. There goes 80% of our carbon emissions, going by the French experience)
2) Sell uranium to other countries and encourage them to follow suit.
3) Maintain the capacity to weaponise our nuclear capacity at short notice if required.
Brilliant, what? I realise there is a bit of nasty radioactive waste involved, but thats a small price to save the planet, isn’t it? Carbon is the enemy afterall.
Totally off topic, sorry Poss, but Flocco (14), there’s some difficulties in your proposal.
The Switk. report determined that 25 nuclear reactors would reduce GROWTH in emissions by 18% by 2040…. So to reduce total emissions by 80% would mean….a lot of reactors.
Flocco
The establishment of nuclear power in Australia would have dire consequences for our environment, our economy and our national security. Nuclear power plants mean nuclear fuel processing and enrichment facilities – not to mention the permanent responsibility of radioactive waste disposal and the ill-effects of those exposed to dangerous materials/situations at all stages of the nuclear power cycle.
Nuclear power is, at best, a harmful distraction from the pursuit of renewable energy sources and the issue of energy efficiency in general. At worst it promotes the proliferation of nuclear materials and weaponry to states and other entities unconcerned with environmental safeguards or global peace and security.
Hoisted by own petard, I had hoped the bit about weaponising our nuclear capacity would have indicated it was a joke.
Having said that, a few points, France has increased its power generation three fold in the last four decades, with 70% of its energy now from nuclear and over the same time they have reduced their emissions by 70%. The country of France generates only slightly more C02 than Australia as a result (1.4% of global emissions to our 1.4%).
Is nuclear good for Australia? I have no idea, but I do think it should be examined seriously without letting the ideological dislike of nuclear getting in the way. Whats a little nuclear waste compared to a runaway greenhouse effect?
I’m not going to derail this further, but there was some good nuclear debate on previous crikey threads in the last fortnight or so. Essentially it’s not that simple to start from scratch, like Australia would have to.
Well, the French started from scratch and net result is 70% reduction in C02 emissions within thirty years, reason enough to at least look at it more at least.
The proportion of people who see China as a threat is surprisingly small, and helps explain why the Liberals’ fear campaign about Rudd’s relationship with China hasn’t worked very well.
The high level of public concern about Indonesia but the low level of official concern about the country (the 2009 Defence White Paper is apparently the first Australian document of its kind to not identify Indonesia as a threat) is also an intereresting phenomenon.
There’s an unfortunate ambiguity in the question – as to whether we see the threat coming from a particular country *as a country*, that is, from the government of that country, or whether we see the threat coming from *people or groups based in that country*. I don’t see Indonesia as a country as being any threat to Australia, but I do see terrorist groups based in Indonesia as a threat. I’m not sure therefore how I’d answer the question.