Login
iscover
Opinion: What we need is a grand strategy that overarches the DSR recommendations and says simply that Australia and all Australians are committed to maintaining the freedoms and democratic principles on which our society is based, writes former naval officer and defence industry analyst Christopher Skinner.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Once again, I read many commentators, for example, Greg Sheridan in The Weekend Australian pontificating on the necessity to gird our loins with major increases in expenditure on potent weapons to extend beyond defence of Australia to rediscover the concept of deterrence of aggression at a distance from our shores.
Unfortunately, this dialogue is blinkered by assuming the only way an aggressor would plan to coerce Australia would be by direct military invasions or blockade. This is such a 20th century concept but the Russian invasion of Ukraine does remind us that in the final analysis, human to human conflict is the ultimate determinant.
What is completely different in the 21st century is the vast spectrum of intermediary effects that a sophisticated aggressor has available to coerce the target country or entity to the aggressor’s will.
Greg Sheridan describes the necessary investments needed to resist an overt military attack on Australian territory, but fails to consider the far more likely means to coerce Australia through economic actions and interruptions of vital imports such as petroleum fuel supplies.
But there is an even more obvious vulnerability in the form of the technology that we take for granted in the operation of our modern society: information and computing technologies, which includes cyber technology, space-based communications, and undersea cables carrying international information networks.
I am reading a recent publication, Chip War by Chris Miller who makes clear that the world has become totally reliant on technology that in turn is utterly dependent on microelectronics most of which are produced by a handful of companies of which the most important is the Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company (TSMC) which produces ‘almost all of the world’s most advanced processor chips’.
So for Australia, we need to refocus on two more important issues as part of our grand strategy.
First, the most likely threat is not of physical invasion of the Australian mainland, but rather the geopolitical and economic coercion for Australia to conform to an inimical culture and set of values. This would be imposed by blockade, international economic sanctions, and intimidation. This especially applies to the maritime trade on which the Australian economy is so reliant.
Second, we should expect divisive interventions to create rifts with our major allies and partners. Information warfare is becoming more potent every day and is targeted at the community rather than military personnel. The age-old idea of propaganda has been dramatically upgraded with modern online communications and engagement. The will of the nation to resist aggression may be undermined without firing a shot.
Therefore Australia’s grand strategy must focus on maintenance of the way of life we have chosen and that requires we articulate the values we hold dear and the principles we are committed to defend. This is much more therefore than defence of territory. It is about defining a culture and a societal framework that we believe in. It is time we concentrated on defining what that is and what we must do as a whole-of-nation to maintain it.
The Defence Strategic Review (DSR), according to the commentators such as Greg Sheridan, is about a shopping list of expensive and complex weapon systems and the networks to operate them effectively. But really, the issue is where are the people who will operate and maintain those systems and how will the Australian community rise to the challenge when we face serious aggression of the kind I have suggested?
What we need is a grand strategy that overarches the DSR recommendations and says simply that Australia and all Australians are committed to maintaining the freedoms and democratic principles on which our society is based. This includes, if necessary, supporting the national security and regional alliance obligations by active engagement in homeland and regional defence.
The DSR process was very much needed to respond to the new urgency of national security without a decade warning time as was previously assumed. What is also needed is a publicly endorsed national grand strategy for the defence not of the Australian territories nor of its national interests but rather the defence of Australia’s way of life as we have made it.
