HENRY REYNOLDS. Australia’s perpetual ‘war footing’.

We should have paid more attention at the time. It was September 2013 and the Abbott government had just been sworn in. The new Defence Minister, Senator David Johnston, gave an interview to a Fairfax journalist which was reported on the front page of the Sydney Morning Herald. The content was truly extraordinary.

He declared that he wanted the forces to be ‘battle ready’ for future wars in the Middle East or South Asia, adding that he thought Pakistan was ‘highly problematic’.  He observed that after fourteen years of involvement in overseas conflict the defence forces had ‘a strong fighting momentum that should not be lost’.  And indeed he said that he planned to maintain and ‘augment our readiness’ for future fights. With what appeared to be the impending withdrawal from Afghanistan it was essential ‘to maintain some interest for the troops.  They’ve got to keep training, got to keep a level of readiness.’

Johnston’s sentiments were startling enough; the underlying assumptions were even more disturbing. He clearly took it for granted that there was a need for Australian military intervention on the far side of the world and that the country had the legal and moral right to do so whenever and wherever it pleased. Efficient and mobile forces needed wars to maintain morale. Anywhere, it seemed, would do. The army was ready for action and should be given its head while the Minister himself clearly wanted a war of his own.

As startling as the new Minister’s statement was, it was even more remarkable that it elicited no public response from anyone despite being the lead story in the Herald. Apparently neither Government nor Opposition felt there was anything exceptional in the comments. They were the new Minister’s first public comments. Presumably they were made in consultation with his department or at least with knowledge of the official briefing papers prepared for the incoming administration. As a long- time adviser to Prime Minister Abbott on defence policy and Shadow Minister for five years, he must have believed his first public briefing would sit comfortably with the outlook of the new government and of the wider defence establishment.

It raises that disturbing question: how could such a public display of war mongering, and that was clearly what it was, slip unremarked into public discourse? We have been at war since the beginning of this century. There is no end in sight. Government and Opposition are joined at the hip when matters of defence and security are concerned. And yet both major parties tell us over and over again that they believe in a rules-based international order. It must seem to outsiders a strange declaration from such a belligerent member of the community of nations, one where it is common to boast we punch above our weight and commemorate past wars with a fervour unmatched anywhere. What a chaotic world it would be if every other small and middle sized nation sent their armed forces across the world to fight as often as does Australia.

It is sobering to consider that Johnston’s lust for war was actually prophetic. Just think where we are at the moment. We are clearly looking to increase our troops in Afghanistan in line with Trump’s statement that American forces were about to return to kill terrorists. Turnbull chimed in with a declaration that we were ‘ very, very staunch allies’ of the United States in the global war to defeat terrorism. Opposition Leader Shorten stood by his side saying he would back the government’s decision, sight unseen, declaring:

Australians should know that my track record when it comes to national security and the deployment of the ADF has been to work with the government of the day because    our ADF expects nothing less from the government and their opposition.

The wording was odd. Labor Party policy was determined by the expectations of the ADF? It was their opposition? The tail now truly wags the dog? Opposition Shadow Minister Richard Marles was also supportive of the return to Afghanistan. But his wording was equally strange, declaring that ‘we cannot afford to see Afghanistan lost and it is important that we focus on that’. Was Afghanistan ever ours to lose? It is all very troubling. Will we be fighting to avoid ‘losing’ Afghanistan for another twenty years? Clearly a Labor government is unlikely to change course and bring the ADF home.

But Afghanistan is not the only place where we have existing or potential commitments. A few weeks ago Turnbull declared his government was at the ready to become involved in Syria again. We continue to have a garrison of 800 troops in Iraq with no timetable for their return. The difficulty of bringing commitments in the Middle East to an end is powerfully illustrated by the Navy’s involvement in the Persian Gulf and nearby waters. It began 25 years ago during the first Gulf War. It still continues. The official story is that it contributes to the stability of the region. Will it continue for another 25 years?  The Middle East may never stabilize in a manner acceptable to the Americans or the Israelis. And having our war ships in the region surely means that we would inevitably be drawn into any future war between America and Iran. How could we possibly opt out?

Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, the Persian Gulf: but that is only part of it. The Government committed itself to involvement in any future war with North Korea. It has recently sent troops and Federal police agents to Mindanao along with surveillance aircraft, and a few months ago there were joint manoeuvres with the Philippines Navy in the Sulu Sea. Will it become another place where Australia becomes involved in a highly complex situation where there are many contending parties and enduring, generation old tensions we know little about. How long and hard will we be willing to fight to prevent Mindanao from becoming ‘lost’?

And then there is the South China Sea. Recently there was a ‘robust’ exchange between our ships and the Chinese Navy, Prime Minister Turnbull declaring that we would send our ships wherever and whenever we wanted to in international waters. But now we fly our new Orion surveillance aircraft out of Butterworth base in Malaysia on patrols over the South China Sea. We are about to begin flights over the Sea of Japan ostensibly to watch for sanction-avoiding activities by North Korea but clearly doubling up with surveillance of nearby China.

So clearly Australia punches above its weight. Whether we benefit from that behaviour is another matter altogether. The pitiful level of public debate about foreign and defence policy in the country allows us to avoid searching self-analysis. Government and Opposition advance in lock-step and the camp followers in Canberra’s think-tanks tag along behind.  Almost universally the practitioners engage in what might be called strategic solipsism. They judge Australia’s international behaviour by different standards they apply to others. So while Admiral Turnbull can send his men o’ war steaming north with a clear conscience, he would be profoundly disturbed if the Chinese chose to sail south on regular patrols to assert their right of navigation close to our off-shore islands, down the outer fringe of the Barrier Reef and back and forth through Torres Strait. We react with outrage at intimations that China may send naval units to dock in Vanuatu while we intervene in Mindanao with army, navy and air force. Can there be any wonder that others are astonished at our unregarded hypocrisy?

Henry Reynolds is an eminent Australian historian.

print

This entry was posted in Defence/Security. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to HENRY REYNOLDS. Australia’s perpetual ‘war footing’.

  1. ANDREW FARRAN says:

    Excellent article. Some of us having been commenting on similar lines for some time but that rarely penetrates the entrenched thinking or stance of those with deep vested interests in its continuation (‘perpetual wars’), including both major political parties and their ‘think tanks’ and toadies in the media.

    The best we can hope for is the reform of the ‘War Powers’, as advocated by Australians for War Powers Reform” (AWPR), so that there will be effective checks and balances in future before a government commits to yet another irrelevant military campaign – or indeed extends the existing ones.

  2. Honest History picked it up but not until late 2014 in this piece http://honesthistory.net.au/wp/does-arms-spending-lead-to-war/

  3. David Macilwain says:

    An excellent appraisal of Australia’s militaristic hubris, and hypocrisy over the “International Rules Based Order” that it routinely tramples on. That the Labor party facilitates this role as the Empire’s deputy sheriff makes it virtually impossible to challenge – not helped by the self-emasculated Greens, who seem to have forgotten their former anti-war and anti-US stance completely.
    What strikes me however today, is that we are in practically the same position as we were in September 2013, when David Johnson made his remarks in the wake of the last false-flag “Sarin attack” on Ghouta. On that occasion the rush to war was held back by the UK parliament vote against UK involvement in a “punitive strike” on Syria, and some clever diplomacy by Russia that initiated the destruction of Chem weapons stocks and equipment.
    That is perhaps what was extraordinary about Johnson’s remarks – that they came in the absence of any sensible discussion of the criminal deception of the “rebel” staged Sarin attack; that view was completely censored from public debate.
    And now we are in the same position, just weeks after the staging of the Skripal-Douma “provocation” and the illegal missile attack on Syria – with one exception – there will be no “perpetual war”. This time “they went too far”, and they – the Triumvirate of the UK, France and US – have been fully exposed as conspirators pushing for war on Russia and her allies. Turnbull’s visit to the heart of this cabal in London – discussing the “threat from Russia” and coordinating our forces with NATO, shows our role in the affair is not marginal, but co-conspiratorial.
    We may talk about “fighting terrorism” and “cyber war” and “national security”, but the clock is ticking; just ask Russia.
    https://ahtribune.com/politics/2250-opcw-conspiracy-russia.html

  4. R. N. England says:

    Thank you, Henry Reynolds, for depicting Australia’s character clearly in the big picture. Always ready to join in state-sponsored killing, but too mean to pay for it ourselves. We have not changed since the days of Federation and Breaker Morant. As the years go by it also becomes clearer that the Whitlam Government was an aberration.

  5. Tony Smith says:

    Thank you Henry for speaking the uncomfortable truth – yet again!

  6. Michael D. Breen says:

    The advertising signage at Canberra airport is bothering in this context. Arrivals are met by all manner of military hardware advertisements. Unusual for an airport in my limited experience. Nothing about the history, fauna or flora? An unobtrusive expression of our national capital’s heart? But then again there is the suggestion that we become a serious exporter of the means of destruction. Can’t say we weren’t warned when Kitchener scared Australia about 1904 into breaching its own constitution by training an expeditionary force lest we are attacked by coloured perils from the north. Or just in case we were needed somewhere by a foreign maternal power.

  7. tasi timor says:

    ‘..troops and Federal police agents to Mindanao…joint manoeuvres with the Philippines Navy in the Sulu Sea. Will it become another place where Australia becomes involved in a highly complex situation where there are many contending parties and enduring, generation old tensions we know little about.’

    We know little about? Who says? ‘We’ know a lot more about Mindanao than we did about E.Timor in 1999. We’ve had troops there with the US since 2006, academic researchers, miners, a WW2 history of Australians fighting a successful guerrilla war in the south [not as well known as the Timor disaster] NGOs and the vast US knowledge base to draw upon. DFAT+Ausaid directs our local NGO partners to use Mindanews as their media outlet to shape elite opinion. It’s our propaganda site.

    Our decision to go there is sound, if too late. It should have been made in the late 1990s when the wars in Maluku and Sulawesi were beginning but we were too timid and lost the ability to make a difference.

    It’s in our national interest to get Navy patrolling the Sibutu passage, a strategic waterway for our trade, and to ensure a peaceful transition to an autonomous Bangsamoro. The alternative being a new war for total independence, and the knock-on effect that would have for neighbouring provinces in Malaysia and Indonesia.

    http://www.mindanews.com/

    ‘Two Australian Army officers who were captured in Singapore and languished in Jap prison camps for many months before escaping from Borneo, where they had been taken to work on an airfield, reached Mindanao after a series of extraordinary adven-tures to fight with the Filipino guerillas from October, 1943, till April. 1945. They are now back in Australia. The officers are Major Rex Blow, of Brisbane, and Capt. Robert M’Claren, of Bundaberg, Queensland. They were members of a party of eight
    Australians who escaped from Borneo in June, 1943. Fighting with Filipino guerillas, they were responsible for the death of hundreds of Japanese, and before being evacuated to Australia captured the largest airfield on Mindanao, Malahang strip.’

    https://trove.nla.gov.au/newspaper/article/68925877

  8. Rosemary Lynch says:

    Perhaps we need to restrict the war-making capacity of our Australian PM: perhaps it should be subjected to a vote by the Parliament, as it is in the UK. I have had enough of PMs drunk on Defence Department rhetoric: Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan, Kuwait, Iraq, Syria, Iraq, ? Iran. No more, please. Throw some rationality in! Recalling that rationality would choose peacemaking, even just a little would be good.

    • Anthony Taylor says:

      Rosemary you forget that Korea and Kuwait were both UN sanctioned wars with the unanimous support of the UN security council of the US, Russia. France, England and China.

Comments are closed.