Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Minister RIchard Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
The weekend Sydney Morning Herald (7 September) front page said: “Australia key to new US security scheme” by Peter Hartcher in Washington.
Hartcher is known as part of the Herald’s China-threat scare in March 2023, telling Australians that we face war with China within three years. Today that leaves just 18 months at the outside before war breaks out. Clearly ill-founded, it was a sensationalist attempt to panic Australians into embracing America’s planning for conflict with China.
The Americans are still at it, of course. And Hartcher is their messenger – boasting that his access in Washington is special because his interview at the White House is the only one which President Joe Biden’s National Security Adviser, Jake Sullivan, has given to Australian media in his 3-1/2 years in the role. Hartcher followed up with another report a few days later explaining that the Americans are looking for another big technology project to foist on Australia. In a hurry, because progress against China has been too slow.
Sullivan wants the new scheme stitched up before Biden leaves office. And by the way, Australia must spend more on defence for its role against China.
America is accustomed to dealing with its allies in that way. Europe’s NATO forces always have been shaped by US close oversight. Its member states are regularly hectored to spend more on defence against a common enemy. Sullivan is treating Australia just as he would another NATO ally. Without a second thought. And Australia’s leaders have fallen into line obsequiously.
Again it has to be said – Australia is not like the NATO countries. NATO was set up in response to an agreed security threat, the USSR.
We have no security threat. No Australian Government has declared, much less demonstrated, that China is a security threat. We had decades of understanding with the United States that our defence spending should be directed to Australia’s own defence with our own forces. Without relying on America. In situations where Australia supported the US militarily overseas, it would be with forces which we held for our own priorities. Nothing special would be done for America. America agreed. That was Australia’s independence in action.
It worked for 35 years until President Barack Obama visited in 2010 effectively requiring Australia to do an about-face. Signalling that henceforth Australia’s defence would be done America’s way.
The Albanese Government’s defence policy manufactures grievous risk for Australia. That risk must be understood by the government.
It is Australia’s experience with the US itself which defines the risk. No need to look elsewhere for examples. Ever since the ANZUS treaty was signed in 1953, America has told Australia not to rely on it if attacked. Again in contrast to NATO, ANZUS deliberately avoids American commitment to assisting Australia if attacked. It was the proof of that American reluctance (over Indonesia) and the Vietnam tragedy which led to Australia facing reality – bipartisanly adopting a self- reliant defence policy in 1976. The risk of not embracing self- reliance was deemed intolerable. To not pursue self-reliance feckless. And that initiative came with America’s enthusiastic endorsement, for 35 years.
Today it suits America to use Australia’s forces for its own ends against China. Yet it won’t commit to our security by dignifying us with a genuine treaty. The obvious risk is that America’s interest in Asia will decline, for many reasons. Then Australia will be left with defences of little use for our own need. What good is an island-hopping army dependent on US Marines, who have gone home? It’s been said before. But the profound risk hasn’t sunk in.
At the business end, the Albanese Government is spending heavily to dump Australia ever deeper into the risk predicament. Marles flaunts the financial cost. Noting that the Defence budget was $48 billion in 2022-23, the Albanese Government will raise it to $55.7 billion in 2024-25:
“These increases will see annual Defence spending almost double over the next ten years to $100 billion in the financial year 2033-34. Taken over a 10-year period, it will be the largest sustained growth in the Defence budget since the Second World War.”
This is the spending which Sullivan says should be increased. Australia’s defence budget of $58 billion is the same as Japan’s, also accelerating because of US pressure.
Australia is to spend mind-boggling money to weaken its own security. Marles has released a National Defence Strategy which centres on what he calls “projection”. That is, Australian forces threatening China from China’s surrounding waters. Sam Roggeveen in his elegant essay “The Jakarta Option” describes the influences which render Marles’ strategy foolhardy. He presents evidence of a structural shift in warfare which renders maritime attack on an opponent’s territory increasingly hazardous. The exchange ratio of maritime forces to land-based weapons has swung heavily to the defender ie China in this case. Marles strategy of “projection” is squarely on the wrong side of this asymmetry.
So, what to do about this latest American “initiative”? Albanese tells the tale of having just one day to consider AUKUS when in opposition. He now has the full resources of Cabinet and can set his own timetable. He can require Marles to talk to the risks and costs to Australia of his National Strategy of power projection. And this latest directive from Washington. Ministers, especially the treasurer, should work through the risks, costs and consequences so that they genuinely know what Australia is being led into at vast cost.
Back to Hartcher. He unwittingly does us a service, demonstrating yet again that Australians have to rely on the candour of American leaders to see through the murky verbiage of Defence Ministers, confirming that it is America which now sets our defence policy, down to project detail. Hartcher will have something to brag about when he has the level of access in Beijing which he claims in Washington.
Dr Mike Gilligan worked for 20 years in defence policy and evaluating military proposals for development, including time in the Pentagon on military balances in Asia.
Contributions to Pearls and Irritations
Your contribution will fund quality independent comment and analysis in Pearls and Irritations
Contribute
