Login
iscover
Michael Wesley of the University of Melbourne has called on Australia’s political leaders to take a tough stance on Beijing’s attempts to impinge on the nation’s sovereignty and security, while also calling for Australia to take a tougher stance and provider greater support to the US alliance.
To continue reading the rest of this article, please log in.
Create free account to get unlimited news articles and more!
Australia as both a continent and a nation is unique in its position, enjoying relative geographic isolation from the flash points of global and regional conflagration of the 20th century.
Blessed with unrivalled resource wealth and industrial potential, the nation has been able to embrace vastly different approaches to the nation’s strategic role and responsibilities.
However, the growing conventional and hybrid capabilities of peer and near-peer competitors – namely Russia and China – combined with the growing modernisation, capability enhancements and reorganisation of force structures in the armies of nations, including India, Indonesia, Vietnam and Thailand, all contribute to the changing nature of contemporary warfare.
This perfect storm of factors, swirling like a maelstrom across Australia’s northern borders, has largely gone unnoticed by the Australian public, beyond the odd port visit by American or, as recently happened, Chinese naval vessels that seem to cause momentary flurries of concern.
Meanwhile, Australia’s strategic and political leaders appear to be caught in an increasingly dangerous paradigm of thinking, one of continuing US-led dominance and Australia maintaining its position as a supplementary power.
Prior to establishing a new paradigm and priorities, it is critical to understand the nation’s history of strategic policy making and the key priorities that have defined Australia's position in the Indo-Pacific since federation – traditionally, Australia’s strategic and defence planning has been intrinsically defined and impacted by a number of different yet interconnected and increasingly complex factors, namely:
- Guaranteeing the enduring benevolence and continuing stability of its primary strategic partner – via continued support of their strategic ambitions;
- The geographic isolation of the continent, highlighted by the 'tyranny of distance';
- A relatively small population in comparison with its neighbours; and
- Increasingly, the geopolitical, economic and strategic ambition and capabilities of Australia’s Indo-Pacific Asian neighbours.
This state of 'strategic dependence' has placed Australia at a disadvantage and entrenched a belief that the nation is both incapable of greater independent tactical and strategic action and must consistently support the designs and ambitions of great powers, with little concern for the broader impact on Australia and its national interests as a form of insurance.
This perfect storm of factors poses a major challenge for Prime Minister Scott Morrison and Australia's economic, political and strategic decision makers as they struggle to get Australia off its dependence upon China.
Recognising this, Melbourne University deputy vice-chancellor international Michael Wesley has called on Australia's political and strategic leaders to develop and implement a stronger Australian position to counter the rising influence of China in the Indo-Pacific, as the rising power increasingly encroaches upon Australia's sphere of influence.
Targeting the US's areas of advantage
A key focus of this for Wesley is the increasing pressure China's assertiveness places on Australia's central strategic partnership: the Australia-US alliance, particularly in light of China's targeting of the US and its position as the global hegemon.
"Yet rather than accepting a role akin to Japan’s — economically successful but unthreatening to the American-led system of alliances — China engaged in regular confrontations with the US and its Pacific allies from the mid-1990s," Wesley articulates.
"Its military scale-up was aimed at removing the US Navy’s freedom to impose stability in the western Pacific without contest. Beijing targeted aircraft carrier battle groups — the key to the US’s ability to project power across the Earth’s largest ocean — with interlocking systems involving hypersonic missiles, seabed sensors, anti-satellite missiles and submarines, creating the most dangerous operating environment the US Navy had faced since 1942.
"China also began a campaign to break US alliances, using its status as the number one trading partner for most Asia-Pacific economies to induce greater independence from Washington. Between 2012 and 2016, Beijing embarked on a series of chess-like moves in the South China Sea and the East China Sea designed to raise doubts about the US’s credibility as an ally.
"While China’s combination of statecraft and swagger has not dismantled any significant alliances, its long-term challenge to US power in the region has had profound consequences."
This dedicated targeting of the US and areas of traditional advantage places increasing pressure on the US to establish and maintain its dominance in the Indo-Pacific, particularly as China closes the quantitative and qualitative gap between its armed forces and those of the US and its key regional allies, including Australia.
The Trump factor
Wesley is quick to stress the importance of President Donald Trump's transactional approach to America's allies, particularly off the back of his increasing confrontations with NATO allies regarding the funding of the Cold War-era alliance system.
"Donald Trump has jettisoned his predecessors’ careful approach of balancing economics with geopolitics in relation to China. As the US abandons all hope of a liberalised China and embarks on decoupling its innovation and technology sectors from the nation, Trump has set the course towards confrontation. But he is not entirely retreating from Asia, where the US has much to gain, and too much to lose if it simply withdraws," Wesley explained.
"Asia will become more and more important to the US economy. And the US is looking to return to its traditional strategy in Asia: not seeking supremacy but, rather, to deny it to any other power."
In recognising this, Wesley articulated Australia's role in America's new approach to countering the rising power and influence of China, particularly as the influence of the emerging great power continues to stretch across the Indo-Pacific.
Wesley stated, "Australia is vital to this new approach, providing both depth and distance to efforts to deny China control over the western Pacific. Australia’s geography has assumed greater importance in US calculations, and it has therefore become of greater interest to China.
"The challenge of Asia has in fact returned in emphatic form. China has a capacity to directly threaten Australia and the US, as well as setting the terms of their engagement with, or disengagement from, Asia. Beijing’s forms of leverage vary and its intentions are opaque."
On the back of this, Wesley articulated the growing need for Australia to carry more of the load in maintaining the region, reinforcing recent comments made by US Indo-Pacific Commander, Admiral Philip Davidson, who stated: "Beijing's approach is pernicious. The party uses coercion, influence operations and military and diplomatic threats to bully other states to accommodate the Communist Party of China's interests."
Further compounding matters for Australia's leaders, Dr Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) highlighted the importance of recognising the limitation of US power in a recent piece for ASPI, saying, "The assumption of continued US primacy that permeated DWP 2016 looked heroic at the time. It seems almost foolishly misplaced now."
Dr Davies' comments have been further reinforced by Dr Malcolm Davis, senior analyst at ASPI, who spoke to Defence Connect about the growing importance of resetting the nation's defence posture.
"We need to burden share to a much greater degree than before, and accept that we can no longer base our defence planning on the assumption that in a major military crisis or a period leading up to a future war, the US will automatically be there for us," Dr Davis explained.
Further to his other points, Wesley states a growing need for both Australia and the US to leverage diplomatic and development methods to prevent future conflict: "The new challenge of Asia for Australia and the US is not military but diplomatic and developmental."
Your thoughts
Australia’s position and responsibilities in the Indo-Pacific region will depend on the nation’s ability to sustain itself economically, strategically and politically.
Despite the nation’s virtually unrivalled wealth of natural resources, agricultural and industrial potential, there is a lack of a cohesive national security strategy integrating the development of individual yet complementary public policy strategies to support a more robust Australian role in the region.
Enhancing Australia’s capacity to act as an independent power, incorporating great power-style strategic economic, diplomatic and military capability serves as a powerful symbol of Australia’s sovereignty and evolving responsibilities in supporting and enhancing the security and prosperity of Indo-Pacific Asia.
Shifting the public discussion away from the default Australian position of "it is all a little too difficult, so let’s not bother" will provide unprecedented economic, diplomatic, political and strategic opportunities for the nation.
However, as events continue to unfold throughout the region and China continues to throw its economic, political and strategic weight around, can Australia afford to remain a secondary power or does it need to embrace a larger, more independent role in an era of increasing great power competition?
Further complicating the nation’s calculations is the declining diversity of the national economy; the ever-present challenge of climate change impacting droughts, bushfires and floods; Australia’s energy security; and the infrastructure needed to ensure national resilience.
Let us know your thoughts and ideas about the development of a holistic national security strategy and the role of a minister for national security to co-ordinate the nation’s response to mounting pressure from nation-state and asymmetric challenges in the comments section below, or get in touch with
Stephen Kuper
Steve has an extensive career across government, defence industry and advocacy, having previously worked for cabinet ministers at both Federal and State levels.
