Few Australians realise that the tropical north occupies more than 40% of our land mass while holding only 5% of the population. But governments — colonial, state and national — have speculated about its destiny since the middle of the 19th century.

Location dominated every consideration. It was far away from the mass of the population as well as from parliaments and government departments. But it was close to Asia and the Pacific Islands. Cairns was closer to Port Moresby than to Brisbane; Darwin was much closer to Java than to Perth. Australians could never decide whether such proximity promised opportunity or danger. It has, then, been an enduring dilemma. It still runs through national thinking like a geological fault line.

In the last 10 years, federal, state and territory governments have invested time and resources in a search for ways to develop the north and to increase its permanent population. New research committees have been set up in Darwin, Cairns and Townsville which, among other things, have looked at ways to work in tandem with neighbouring institutions in Southeast Asia. But that is only half the story. Quite separately the Department of Defence has been rapidly working with the Pentagon to turn the north into a fortress, less to defend domestic territory and more to prepare for war with China.

This situation immediately brings to mind the observation about Australia’s place in Asia which was voiced three years ago by Singaporean diplomat and intellectual, Kishore Mahbubani. Our strategic dilemma was simple, he thought. We could choose to be “a bridge between East and West in the Asian century – or the tip of the spear projecting Western power into Asia”. For all his wisdom, Mahbubani got one thing wrong about Australia. We have never found a simple answer to our dilemma, not in the past and not today. The federal government looks, Janus-like, in opposite directions. Wong and DFAT face one way Marles and Defence the other.

The contradiction becomes increasingly obvious the farther north we go. This became apparent in May 2024 at a Defence Industry convention in Darwin where Defence Industry Minister Pat Conroy outlined projected spending plans. Money appeared to be no object. The government had in hand plans to spend $18 billion on defence bases across the north from the Kimberley, the Territory and north Queensland. The north he explained was “critical to the defence of Australia but in projecting power out into our region against any potential adversary”. He didn’t need to say who the adversary would certainly be. American visitors to the north were much more forthcoming. In August 2024, Republican Congressman Michael McCaul, the powerful chairman of the House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee, spent 10 days in the country. In an interview [paywalled] published in The Australian, he declared that our geography offered key advantages to the US “as it sought to deter Chinese aggression”. Indeed, the north would become the “central base of operations in the Indo-Pacific to counter the threat”.

In the same article, Defence Minister Marles explained that the “American military was now operating in Australia across land, sea, air, cyber and space”. Just a few days ago he returned to the theme. After a recent visit to Washington, he declared that Australia’s defence relationship with the US is “closer than any other country”. Marles obviously sees this as a matter of pride, despite the undisguised subservience and the surrender of sovereignty. It is simply unbelievable to accept that the government is not complicit in the plans to cede control over north Australia to facilitate war with China. In those circumstances, it would indeed become the bridge not to facilitate relations between East and West, but to help to wield the spear tip of diminished Western power. This will not endear us to our neighbours in Southeast Asia who are only too aware of the disastrous consequences of a Sino-American war.

The militarisation of tropical Australia continues apace. The defence establishment has at last found a use for the empty north. Its geography has become an asset rather than a liability. Developments can proceed without planning difficulties or political interference.

Territory governments welcome almost any development. Vast stretches of land are perfect for large-scale military exercises. Empty skies allow air forces from far and wide to carry out manoeuvres without stirring up opposition from dense urban populations below.

But neither the Australian nor the US Governments display any intention to consult or consider the opinion of the First Nations’ people about their plans to turn their homelands into the “central base” for a vast conflict. This matters more now than it ever has done in the past. The Land Rights Movement has delivered truly revolutionary changes. The First Nations now hold title of one sort or another to over three-quarters of the land in the north and more than that over the coastline. At much the same time, the homelands movement has seen small parties of kin move back to traditional lands all over the north, from Cape York to the Kimberley.

Their latent power has yet to be tested. But since 2009 they have been able to appeal to the International Declaration of the Rights of Indigenous People which was ratified by the Rudd Government in 2009 and then strongly endorsed by Julie Bishop when she was foreign minister between 2013 and 2018. It has then had bipartisan support for over 10 years. When Penny Wong became foreign minister in 2022 she declared that Indigenous rights would inform her policies and that an Indigenous ambassador would give international support to the Declaration. This has more significance to the matters at hand than most people realise. The Preamble of the Declaration actually makes specific reference to “the demilitarisation of the lands and territories of Indigenous peoples”. Article 30/2 of the document is more specific pronouncing that:

States shall undertake effective consultation with the indigenous people concerned,

through appropriate procedures and in particular through their representative institutions,

prior to using their lands and territories for military activities.

I wonder if Wong has ever crossed the lake from the DFAT building to inform the Defence Department of these provisions or even presented them to the nearby American embassy. She might even have dropped Marles a note reminding him of the provisions in the Declaration given his propensity to lecture other countries and China, in particular, to abide by the rules-based international order.

The views expressed in this article may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.