`sheriff' Bravado Gives Way To Balance
The Age
Thursday December 7, 2000
So much for any fears or expectations that Australia was about to kick-start a new regional arms race.
There is nothing to alarm or unnerve our neighbors in the Defence White Paper yesterday. In fact, it will do much to put to rest the hysteria surrounding the so-called Howard Doctrine.
The Prime Minister let the defence debate run away from him this time last year, in the afterglow of the successful East Timor deployment, when he foolishly allowed Australia's role in the region to be portrayed as that of ``deputy sheriff" to the American superpower.
In contrast, the white paper is a measured document that carries no hint of boastfulness or bravado. It restores perspective to the debate.
The government has foreshadowed a significant increase in military spending through to 2010. But it is far from a quantum leap.
Even with additional funds of $16billion to be spent on new combat and surveillance aircraft, new helicopters, a new class of naval destroyer, and the upgrade of the ADF's information and surveillance technology, the defence budget will remain constant as a proportion of gross domestic product.
Unlike some previous defence papers, this one appears to be guided as much by the hand of Treasury as the defence chiefs at Russell Hill.
Yes, there will be a modest increase in the number of Australians in uniform, rising from 51,000 to 54,000. But this is merely a reversal of the long-term trend in troop reductions.
Yes, six battalions of the army will be in a higher state of readiness. But this had already been announced in response to the lessons of the East Timor deployment and is no more than a necessary adjustment to the dynamic uncertainty that has become a fact of life in this part of the world.
The white paper does not seek to play down the potential risks of living in a less predictable neighborhood. Indeed, it emphasises ongoing concern over the political challenges facing Indonesia, PNG and the small island states of the South Pacific. But nor does it emit any hint of being panicked into changes.
The white paper confirms the principles that have governed Australia's strategic posture for the past 25 years. In short, the role of the Australian Defence Force is not to be rushing off to regional hotspots whenever trouble flares.
This should reassure those in the region, notably the Indonesians, who might have been troubled by what they see as evidence of a new, muscular streak of interventionism emerging in Australia.
None of this is to say the Howard Government is retreating from its stance in East Timor. Far from it.
The white paper says it is critical that the military maintain its edge in firepower and technology over potential regional rivals.
Even on the existing budget of $12.2billion, Australia easily outspends its near-neighbors, a trend accentuated during the Asian economic crisis. In South-East Asia, only Singapore comes close.
But the white paper reaffirms the need for vigilance over our state of preparedness. Asia is the second biggest regional market in the world for the arms trade, and includes two nuclear giants, China and India, both of which have ambitions to join the major league of global powers. The military build-up in the 1990s has also brought state-of-the-art fighter aircraft, even cruise missiles, into the regional defence equation.
Hence, the emphasis on upgrading and replacing Australia's fleet of combat and strike aircraft, at a cost of $7billion, to ensure the ADF is capable of executing its first and foremost duty of defending Australia's maritime approaches.
Similarly, the white paper does not step back from what are seen as Australia's security obligations in the region. ``As a middle-size power, there is much we can and should do to help keep our region secure and support global stability," it says.
It says Australia must expect to be the ``largest force contributor" in the event of any security crises in PNG or the small island states. This might include peacekeeping operations, evacuations or humanitarian relief.
Farther afield, in South-East Asia, Australia would be unlikely to commit forces unless as part of a multi-nation coalition. Likewise, in North Asia, we would be likely to deploy only as part of a US-led coalition. In high-intensity warfare, Australia's contribution would be confined to air and naval forces.
The white paper acknowledges that not everyone shares Australia's enthusiasm for an ongoing US role in preserving strategic balance in the region. While not making direct reference to the tensions across the Taiwan Straits, the document alludes to the balancing act that will be necessary for Australia to deepen dialogue with China while maintaining the US as its single most important strategic partner.
But on the American alliance, the government leaves no room for ambiguity: ``The US-Australia alliance is as important today as it has ever been (and) Australia's undertakings in the ANZUS Treaty to support the US are as important as US undertakings to support Australia."
Tony Parkinson is The Age's International Editor.
© 2000 The Age