What is Australia’s strategic metageography? Island, continent or archipelago?

The Australian strategist Arthur Tange once said that the most important defence document is the map. But how should the map of Australia be interpreted? The two most common ways have been to view Australia as an Island and as a Continent. While both have long influenced national policy, these 'metageographies' are unhelpful for thinking about and resolving Australia′s current strategic problems. This paper explores the influence of metageographies on Australian defence policy, and then promotes the idea of Australia as archipelago. Though counter-intiuitive, this framework compellingly maps the nation′s historical patterns and emerging defence strategy. From ancient First Nations trade networks to colonial settlements as maritime nodes; from urban concentration to distributed military bases, the archipelagic frame captures what singular interpretations miss–Australia is defined by both distance and connection. An archipelagic metageography offers policy makers a conceptually powerful way of explaining, justifying and directing the national defence strategy. For scholars, examining metageographies reveals core assumptions behind scholarly and public debates over Australia′s strategy and place on the map.