FROM WARFARE TO WEALTH — Australia’s struggle for strategic independence

Our new series, WAR FOR THE RICH, is a progressive critique of the Federal Government’s defense and foreign policy conduct. Provides in-depth analysis of Australia’s $368 billion AUKUS commitment and the wider militarization of our economy.

It is planned to be held ahead of the ALP national conference (23-25 July), which will shape the Government’s policy platform and strategic direction for at least the next two years, in the hope that, alongside increasing pressure from wider society, these arguments against militarization may be convincing enough to make their mark.

Part 2: Australia’s strategic struggle for independence

This article is the second part of the War on Riches: Driving Australia’s Future series. You can read the first part HERE. The next episode will be released soon.

Australia’s security lies in investing in genuine sovereignty, regional cooperation and national resilience, not deeper military dependence. Dr Mark Beeson writes.

LEADERS OF DEMOCRATIC STATES often reassure those they represent that they are acting in the “national interest.”

Although this idea is rarely articulated, it gives a veneer of legitimacy to whatever policymakers and other powerful economic and strategic actors deem appropriate. Sovereignty – another understated concept – is the desired outcome, even if it is unattainable, for most states, especially those of the “middle power” variety such as Australia.

In contrast, “major” or “hegemonic” powers can often get what they want and force or persuade other states to do their bidding. But as President of the United States Donald Trump We are now discovering that even overwhelming military might may not be enough to persuade some states to bend their knees.

increasingly earlier unstable and aggressive But under Donald Trump, persuasion and voluntarism were much more effective tools of American supremacy. To be fair, in the period following World War II, many countries, including Australia, benefited greatly from the much-referred to “rules-based international order”, which was directly associated with a period of unprecedented warfare. economic expansion and political stability, at least in the “global north.”

Leaving some influence and economic clout to foreign multinationals and global financial markets seemed a small price to pay for unprecedented economic growth; Margaret Thatcher It was claimed that there was no other alternative. Even China’s State-dominated form of capitalism It is not impervious to market forces.

It’s good while it lasts

But the price of being part of the American-made postwar international order was the desire to be a part of it.base empire” or the hundreds of military outposts the United States maintains around the world.

While this was understandable during the Cold War, when the Soviet Union posed a real strategic challenge and even served as a role model for some countries, it now appears to be less of a compelling factor in terms of national policy priorities.

Or that is, unless you accept the view that the rise of China poses a similar challenge to the US and its allies, none of whom are more reliable or enthusiastic than Australia. In fact, America’s unilateral, illegal and deeply misguided attack on Iran marks a rare case where Australia has not gone after its main ally in war, no matter how misguided or contrary to Australia’s national interests.

Skeptics claim that Australia is involved Like the conflicts in Iran Leveling of Gaza. But even if we accept that the absence of active military support in Iran represents a rare exception, there are persistent material constraints on Australia’s ability to make independent policy decisions that make any deviation from American priorities literally unthinkable for policymakers and strategic elites in Canberra.

Australia is still very ‘suitable piece of real estate‘ and it has proven to be the perfect place for the United States to establish “joint facilities” for intelligence gathering, aircraft bases, a “rotating” naval force, and now, of course, nuclear-powered submarines. It’s safe to assume that the latter will also be nuclear-armed, as they must be ready for any strategic contingency.

Joint intelligence collection facility Pine Gap remains controversial because Reflects America’s strategic priorities and got involved in this destruction of Gaza. Likewise, Harold Holt Naval Communications Station The message at the Northwest Cape allows the US to send encrypted messages to its fleet of nuclear-armed submarines without any Australian oversight or consultation. This necessarily increases the risk of Australia being dragged into another American-inspired conflict.

The role of nuclear-powered and armed submarines operating in the Indian Ocean will inevitably increase following the construction of a new submarine base on Garden Island near Perth. Even if Perth wasn’t a nuclear target before, its fans “”apex predator”: The kind of Virginia-class submarines Australia may or may not get in the coming years.

progressive patriotism

Against this background and the growing tide of suspicion regarding the increasing use of a handful of nuclear-powered submarines “transparent ocean” cheap submarines are inspected by unmanned aerial vehicles, said the Government’s Minister of Defense Industries. Pat ConroyI tried to explain Why is AUKUS still a “critical part” related to “Progressive patriotism”.

Conroy celebrated this “Government of Albania provides largest ever increase in peacetime defense investments”.

Not only does this sound very “progressive”, but it is also undermined by Conroy’s later observation:

“You can spend all the money in the world for defensive capabilities, but if you’re not buying the right capabilities or delivering them on time, then what’s the point?”

Good question. This is precisely the point that a growing number of former prime ministers, senior military personnel and even disgruntled academics have been making for some time now: we are not buying the right kit, and that is as certain as anything. will not be delivered on time if possible.

Even in the unlikely event that a handful of second-hand or even new submarines eventually appear, what difference could they make in a world potentially dominated by rival companies? domains? Indeed, if China is not deterred by America’s overwhelming military might, what difference could Australia make, even assuming our notional protector does not? I packed up and went home?

Assuming the world will return to “normal” after Trump leaves, or democratic principles and restoring the rule of law in the United States does not seem like a sensible policy. Indeed, there may be something to be said for becoming more “self-sufficient”, but only if this reflects Australia’s literal and figurative place in the international order.

All else being equal, China, our largest trading partner, will be the dominant power in a region where Australians enjoy an incredibly privileged and secure position. But as Conroy rightly points out, “Getting along with our neighbors has never been more important.” and this includes China. China is unlikely to destroy the economic system it operates in It was of great benefit and still depends on it. Investments yield greater returns than invasions.

Meanwhile, if progressive patriots really must have “trust the future”They can turn their minds to the factors that will shape the world that future generations will inherit. The most important of these remains the inadequately addressed existential problem of climate change. Chinese It has done more than any other country.

If the government is really determined “To protect the things we value most”they may want to shut down the inexcusable coal industry, cancel the AUKUS project and use the money to finance the electrification of the country; Not to mention delivering free higher education, social housing and a host of other, non-waterproof, decidedly progressive projects that would actually make us feel safer.

Who knows, maybe this will even make us patriots.

This article, FROM WAR TO RICH, is the second in a multi-part series examining the true costs of our current defense trajectory and exploring the alternatives suggested by Make Peace a Priority.MPAP) offer. You can read the first part HERE.

Dr Mark Beeson is an adjunct professor at the University of Technology Sydney and Griffith University. He was previously Professor of International Politics at the University of Western Australia.

Support independent journalism Subscribe to IA.