Australia is an island continent and the development of strategic defence policy must consider our geopolitical environment. Taking into consideration our geopolitical situation, Australia has always had a strong interest in the preservation of a powerful maritime ally in Asia. In more recent times Australia’s strategic environment has focused on the stability of Asia, particularly SE Asian underpinned by the continued US strategic maritime primacy in the region. The economic growth of the China has seen it develop into the largest economy in Asia and many believe on current trends China will surpass US as the largest economy by 2030. There is a simple overarching trend; large economies tend to spend more on defence than small economies. As a countries economy grows, so too does its defence spending. The anticipated increase in China’s military power and the potential to project this power into the Asia Pacific region is a source of concern for Australia. Will China’s growth have a destabilising effect in the Asia Pacific? Does China’s growth threaten US primacy? These questions must be addressed in the development of Australia’s future strategic policy in order to ensure appropriate military structure and capability is developed.
The aim of this essay is to examine the policy established in the 2009 Defence White Paper (DWP) to determine if it aligns with Australia’s strategic circumstances. The approach will be to outline the strategic objectives, capability priorities and funding projections as detailed in the DWP. Secondly, I will determine how well this resulting policy is matched to Australia’s strategic circumstances by considering the major influencing factors; the rise of China; the fragility of our immediate South Pa...
... middle of paper ...
...an aspirational proposition.
Works Cited
yson, R., 2010. Australia's Defense Polcy: Medium Power, Even Bigger Ambitions?. Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 22(2), pp. 183-196.
Behm, A., 2009. Australian Strategic Policy and the Age of Uncertainty. Security Challenges, 5(2), pp. 11-20.
Cottrill, R., 2009. Talking tough: Defence White Paper 2009. The Asialink Essays, 5(July), pp. 1-6.
Davies, R. and Lyon A., 2009. Assessing the Defence White Paper 2009, Strategic Insights, Strategic Policy Institute.
9
Department of Defence, 2009. Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific Century: Force 2030, Canberra: Commonwealth of Austarlia.
Dibb, P., 2007. Australia's Strategic Outlook 2017–2027. Canberra: Australian Defence Magazine.
Fruhling, S., 2009. The Missing Link: Politics, Strategy and Capability Priorities. Security Challenges, 5(2), pp. 41-50.
John Curtin, Prime Minister of Australia from 1941 – 1945, significantly supported the movement towards an Australian-American relationship. In his speech the Task Ahead, he states “Without any inhibitions of any kind, I make it quite clear that Australia looks to America, free of any pangs as to our traditional links or kinship with the United Kingdom.” This speech was supported by newspapers around the country, possibly showing bias, but it is unlikely that Curtin's statement had a major influence on the US military strategy. A close alliance between the two countries was inevitable, as they both shared the same goal - to defeat the Japanese (John.curtin.edu.au, n.d.; Australian Geographic, 2012) and control the Pacific. However, the effect of this statement on the Australian people can be seen in the newspapers from the time period. H.R Knickerbocker, states “It is the bounden duty of the U.S. to strain every nerve and every effort to ship to Australia today and tomorrow, every available fighter bomber and masses of army marines and navy” (Fall of Singapore: What it Means to Us, 1942, from nla.gov.au). This statement is a clear example of Australia’s new found reliance on the United States, showing how Australia has become dependent on the U.S providing it with resources and
The partnership between Australia and Japan instigated with the signing of ANZUS treaty in 1951. ANZUS joined the nations of Australia, New Zealand and the United States of America in a defence security pact for the Pacific region. It chiefly resulted from the fear of communism by Western nations. However, from Australia’s point of view at the time, ANZUS also offered protection against a potential threat from Japan. Australia was concerned that Japan would try to conquer the Pacific region again after suffering defeat in the Second World War. Hanson.M (2001:28) sates that shortly after the end of World War Two, Australia wanted the Japanese government turned into a democracy. She even wanted a peace treaty that punished those leaders responsible for Japan’s aggression, broke the great industrious complexes of Japan’s economy, and left Japan disarmed. The ANZUS treaty however, created a connection between Australia and Japan on easier terms. With United States backing Australia, it was now safe to interact with Japan. Although ANZUS did not guarantee direct military support from United States, it still provided consultation in an event of attack on any of the three countries. Wolferen.K (1989:54) notes that security co-operation has been growing between Australia and Japan throughout the 1990’s. Communist China was the major concern for the two nations. Japan and Australia had the same negative views about communism, which led to them sharing a common purpose in countering the communists within that region.
“The Price of Military Folly.” U.S. News Online. 1996. 10 April 2000 . Robinson, Linda.
When the Great War began, Australia went to war as a nation which not only held its own but was invaluable to many ...
...Ernest R. and Gregory F. Treverton. ‘Defence Relationships: American Perspectives’. The Special Relationship. Ed. William Rogers Louis and Hedley Bull. Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1986. 161-184.
Watson, Robert P., Devine, Michael J. and Wolz, Robert J. eds., The National Security Legacy
“Ready for War.” Intelligence Reports Iss. 131 (Fall 2008). 46-54 SIRS Researcher. Web. 03 Feb. 2011.
American policy was conflicted on multiple fronts. There was a high-perceived threat, but the means devised to cope with it fell short o...
Should the government decrease military spending or should it increase military spending? This is a question that many Americans wrestle with, and politically speaking, is a point of great contention since to many, military might evokes a sense of security. However, when considering this question from a foreign policy standpoint, does current military spending really match the current level of threats faced by the United States, or are too many dollars being allocated for an unnecessary level of military strength? There are certainly cons in making the decision to drastically lower military spending, but they are minimal when compared to the positive ramifications such a decision would have. This paper aims to explore these pros and cons
China is the most populous state in the world, with over 1.3 trillion inhabitants (Central Intelligence Agency 2010). Because of its large population base, China also has the largest military and a booming economy that is third only America and Japan in terms of GDP; however, economic trends show that Japan’s economy is stagnating, while the American Chinese economies continue to spike upward (Google, Inc. 2010). Despite its growing economy and large military force, China lags behind America in technology and naval power. Chinese Admiral Wu Shengli said, “The Navy will move faster in researching and building new-generation weapons to boost the ability to fight in regional sea wars under the circumstance of information technology” (Xuequan 2009). This quote shows that China wants to remain a regional sea power, and not develop a blue-water navy that can compete with the American navy. Furthermore, a Popular Mechanics article showed the world that China was stealing American military “leap ahead” technology, or technology that is decades ahead of Chinese technology (Cooper 2009).
Wendt, Alexander. “Constructing International Politics.” International Security. Cambridge: President and Fellows of Harvard College and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, 1995. 71-81. Print.
Compare and Contrast the National Defense Strategy (NDS) of the United States of America with the Nation...
Given these sets of circumstances, china, Taiwan and United States have much to gain and even more to lose if an armed conflict erupts in the Taiwan Strait. All three countries have political, economic, and national security issues involved and united states and china are both in competition economic...
Mingst, K. (2011). Essentials of international relations. (5th ed., p. 70-1). New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
Rotfeld, Adam D. 1998. “Prescriptions for Improving OSCE Effectiveness in Responding to the Risks and Challenges of the 21st Century” Presented to the 3rd International Security Forum and 1st Conference of the PfP Consortium of Defense Academies and Security Studies Institutes. http://www.isn.ethz.ch/3isf/Online_Publications/WS5/WS_5B/Rotfeld.htm