Australia and the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence network: the perils of an asymmetric alliance

O’Neil, Andrew

doi:10.1080/10357718.2017.1342763

Cited by 18 publications

(10 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The FVEY alliance—among the United States, the United Kingdom, Canada, Australia, and New Zealand—is the world’s most enduring multilateral intelligence sharing network (O’Neil 2017). Initiated in the 1940s, it exemplifies multilateral efforts to facilitate mass surveillance (Ruby et al 2017).…”

Section: Australia’s Data Colonialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, British colonial legacy has shaped the alliance. Australia’s involvement in the FVEY alliance is a result of its “close relationship with Britain,” and it maintains a junior position relative to the United States and the United Kingdom (O’Neil 2017, 536). While Australia supplies strategic intelligence and information to the FVEY alliance, particularly about the Asia-Pacific region, it is primarily a consumer of the senior partners’ data.…”

Section: Australia’s Data Colonialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…While Australia supplies strategic intelligence and information to the FVEY alliance, particularly about the Asia-Pacific region, it is primarily a consumer of the senior partners’ data. Estimates suggest “the two-way intelligence flow between Australia and the USA is roughly 90 percent in Australia’s favour, with Canberra providing niche contributions overwhelmingly in relation to South-East Asia and the Pacific region” (O’Neil 2017, 538).…”

Section: Australia’s Data Colonialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Edward Snowden’s 2013 revelations cast light on Australia’s role in the shady FVEY alliance to much outrage from Australia’s neighbors. These revelations showed that most information sharing between the Australian Signals Directorate (ASD) and the National Security Agency (NSA) concerned military and political issues in China and Indonesia (O’Neil 2017). Australia was engaged in extensive spying on regional neighbors via listening posts in diplomatic missions in Cambodia, China, Indonesia, Malaysia, Myanmar, and Thailand.…”

Section: Australia’s Data Colonialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 3 more Smart Citations

(Big) Data and the North-in-South: Australia’s Informational Imperialism and Digital Colonialism

Mann

Daly

2018

Television & New Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Australia is a country firmly part of the Global North, yet geographically located in the Global South. This North-in-South divide plays out internally within Australia given its status as a British settler-colonial society which continues to perpetrate imperial and colonial practices vis-à-vis the Indigenous peoples and vis-à-vis Australia’s neighboring countries in the Asia-Pacific region. This article draws on and discusses five seminal examples forming a case study on Australia to examine big data practices through the lens of Southern Theory from a criminological perspective. We argue that Australia’s use of big data cements its status as a North-in-South environment where colonial domination is continued via modern technologies to effect enduring informational imperialism and digital colonialism. We conclude by outlining some promising ways in which data practices can be decolonized through Indigenous Data Sovereignty but acknowledge these are not currently the norm; so Australia’s digital colonialism/coloniality endures for the time being.

show abstract

Section: Australia’s Data Colonialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Australia’s Data Colonialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Australia’s Data Colonialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Australia’s Data Colonialismmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

(Big) Data and the North-in-South: Australia’s Informational Imperialism and Digital Colonialism

Mann

Daly

2018

Television & New Media

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Egypt and Israel show considerable regional variations. Due to the close security cooperation between the foreign ministries of the United Kingdom, United States, Australia, Canada and New Zealand under the ‘Five eyes agreement’ (O’Neil, 2017), the practice of regionalizing travel advisories has become increasingly prevalent in travel advisories issued by the foreign ministries of these countries.…”

Section: Broadening Membership Of Dfat’s Travel Advisory Consultativementioning

confidence: 99%

Collaborative approaches to government travel advisories in Australia between Australia’s travel industry leadership and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2003–2017

Beirman

2018

Journal of Vacation Marketing

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The October 2002 Bali bombing was a catalyst for the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) to radically alter its approach to the content and dissemination of Australian government travel advisories. Integral to DFAT’s post-Bali strategy was its decision to seek the collaborative support of the Australian outbound travel industry leadership to broaden dissemination of travel advisories to outbound Australian travellers. Although initial contacts between DFAT and the Australian travel industry leaders in early 2003 were contentious, subsequent negotiations resulted in the world’s first signed agreement between a foreign ministry and a national travel industry leadership in June 2003. The initial agreement, the Charter for Safe Travel involved the Australian travel industry’s commitment to disseminate DFAT travel advisories in exchange for a viable consultative role in their content. Australia’s collaborative model was adopted in the UK from 2004, in Canada from 2005 and New Zealand since 2016. Globally, consultation between national travel industry leaders and national foreign ministries is rare, despite the support of the United Nations World Tourism Organization, the World Travel and Tourism Council and the Pacific Asia Travel Association. Through participant observation research, in the context of collaboration and stakeholder theories, this article discusses the evolution of a consultative relationship between DFAT and the Australian outbound travel industry leadership and other relevant stakeholders between 2003 and 2017. The observations made in this study reveal that collaborative consultation has achieved positive changes to travel advisories which feature regionally specific, timely and comprehensible content. These qualitative enhancements have been complemented by enhanced dissemination of Australian government travel advisories. Australia’s Consular Consultative Group serves as a working model for similar collaboration, in the interests of global tourism safety.

show abstract

How to Classify Intelligence Relations: Partnership Types in the Intelligence Community

Røseth

2020

Intelligence Relations in the 21st Century

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Australia and the ‘Five Eyes’ intelligence network: the perils of an asymmetric alliance

Cited by 18 publications

References 22 publications

(Big) Data and the North-in-South: Australia’s Informational Imperialism and Digital Colonialism

(Big) Data and the North-in-South: Australia’s Informational Imperialism and Digital Colonialism

Collaborative approaches to government travel advisories in Australia between Australia’s travel industry leadership and the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2003–2017

How to Classify Intelligence Relations: Partnership Types in the Intelligence Community

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About