John Menadue is a former private secretary to Gough Whitlam, secretary of the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet under both Whitlam and Fraser and a former ambassador to Australia. Menadue edits the online public policy journal ‘Pearls and Irritations’.
This week’s edition contains a series of articles critical of the Albanese Government’s early foreign policy trajectory, which has mainly been the subject of praise in Australia’s mainstream media.
Brian Toohey
In his article, journalist Brian Toohey asks, ‘What is Anthony Albanese up to?’.
He says that Albanese engages in excessive foreign policy hyperbole.
He told NATO leaders China aimed to become the most powerful nation in the world and its strengthening relations with Moscow “posed a risk to all democratic nations”.
But Toohey doubts Russia will be in any condition to go to war with any other country after its abhorrent decision to invade Ukraine.
Albanese blasted China for not condemning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine but exempted India which did the same. Labor’s Defence Minister Richard Marles earlier warmly praised India and said it is “central to Australia’s worldview and defence planning”.
Toohey says Albanese falsely suggested that Australia always obeys international rules. If it had, it would not have helped the US and the UK invade Iraq. The invasion killed or seriously injured large numbers of people and rendered even more homeless. It also allowed terrorist groups to operate in Iraq when none were present under Saddam Hussein.
Toohey agrees China is building up its armed forces. But its spending is no match for the US which spends as much as the next nine countries together, including China. Plus, China has good reason to respond to a US military build-up. In 2009, the US announced it had developed an Air/Sea Battle Plan for a war with China, to destroy much of its air and naval forces and blockade all its ports and maritime routes. The details have changed. But in 2011 the US also adopted its “pivot” to the Pacific with the goal of deploying 60 per cent of its forces there. It is also actively engaged in building new bases on Pacific islands within striking distance of China while, at the same time, the Albanese government loudly opposes any hint that China might try to build a naval base in the Pacific, or even in nearby Cambodia. US and Australian forces also constantly undertake surveillance missions close to China.
In the past, says Toohey, Labor would be among those urging support for new arms control agreements and expanding all channels for the potential combatants to talk. Ben Chifley, Bert Evatt, Gough Whitlam, Bill Hayden, Gareth Evans, and Paul Keating all made significant efforts to actively promote peace. But Anthony Albanese is supporting a large arms build-up.
Like Paul Keating did last December, Toohey criticises the Albanese government’s support for the Coalition’s new security pact between Australia, the UK, and the US (AUKUS). He says no one has given a convincing explanation for why we need AUKUS on top of ANZUS.
Toohey criticises Labor’s support for the Coalition’s deal to buy eight nuclear subs. This is basically to enable us to assist the US by firing cruise missiles from nuclear submarines operating far from Australia into China. It’s a bad idea on both strategic and cost grounds. Plausible estimates put the cost of eight US nuclear submarines at $171 billion. It will only provoke China which can fire more missiles into Australia than Australia can fire into it. We should do more to defend Australia from closer to home with a mix of weapons at a much lower cost.
Australian public opinion does not unambiguously support Labor’s strategy. The latest Lowy Institute’s annual poll shows over 51 per cent believe Australia should remain neutral in a military conflict between China and the US.
Percy Allan
Public policy economist and former head of NSW Treasury Percy Allan writes that Anthony Albanese is perpetuating the myth that China’s action in 2020 to restrict Australian exports was a bolt out of the blue that was uncalled for.
Allan says that in the previous four years Australia blocked:
- China’s exports of aluminium and steel products on grounds that the WTO rejected,
- Chinese investments including those in non-strategic products like Lion dairy and drinks,
- Chinese technology even though Huawei’s 5G system was recognised as the best available, and
- China’s promotion of its interests in Australia like other nations do (e.g., Israel, USA, Britain, France, Germany, India, Japan).
Afterwards, ASIO raided the homes of Chinese journalists to seize their computers and interrogate them in front of their families. Also, the Australian government pressured universities to close their Chinese-sponsored language centres notwithstanding they don’t engage in politics.
Allan says that when Malcolm Turnbull became PM, Canberra decided that Australia should lead the world in decoupling from China, even though it was our main market and an important source of investment, tourism, and students. This stance proved a winner with the new Trump administration though Australia got no favours in return. Indeed, Trump’s trade deal with China forced it to divert its agricultural imports to America at the expense of other primary producers including Australia.
Allan writes that Taiwan is a vibrant democracy, and it would be tragic if Taiwan was invaded causing bloodshed and the loss of its freedom. But he thinks there are strong deterrents to China doing so. Allan does not believe that President XI would risk the possible loss of face and foreign markets by attacking Taiwan.
Allan says the current attempt by Albanese to equate China with Russia is inflammatory. If China had imperial ambitions, it would already have conquered Mongolia, a country 2.6 times the size of Ukraine, resource-rich (like Australia), but with a population of only 3.3m and one of the smallest armed forces in the world. And a democracy to boot, notwithstanding being wedged between Russia and China. It was part of China before Russia carved it out as a separate state in 1921. Instead, China respects Mongolia’s sovereignty even though it has occasional diplomatic spats (such as when the Dalai Lama visits). If China coveted Australia’s resources, it would seize Mongolia’s first.
Seeking peace between America and China is in our national interest. Ensnaring ourselves in a contest between them is not. Other Asian countries want détente, and so should we.
Instead, Australia has now decided to fuse its navy with America’s (via AUKUS) and to confront China by undertaking military surveillance of its contested waters. Allan asks us to imagine our reaction if China’s navy and air force regularly tested freedom of navigation and air surveillance of seas near Australia to ensure our shipping lanes remained free given China’s dependence on our trade. He says that’s what we think is legitimate for our navy and air force to do in the South and East China Seas to confront China.
For Albanese to now reset relations with China, he should make it clear that while Australia seeks military security with other like-minded democracies through alliances such as ANZUS, AUKUS, QUAD, and Five Eyes, it seeks economic security through its Free Trade Agreement with China and the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership to which both nations belong.
He should stress that while Australia relies on the USA for its military security it would not get involved in any military fight over Taiwan or South China Sea outposts because it does not have the capability to do so and it wants to reduce tensions between America and China, not exacerbate them. That means ceasing Australia’s navy and air force surveillance operations in airspace and waters close to Chinese-claimed territory. China’s interception of our warplanes and naval ships on these missions could trigger a conflict forcing us to withdraw. Better to do that before it happens again. Taiwan’s protection should be left to America and Japan who both have the military might and mutual interest to provide that.
Finally, Australia should not join America’s quest to prevent China’s rise as an economic power, because our prosperity is heavily dependent on China’s becoming a rich country. But Albanese should stress that Australia’s economic partnership with China is contingent on both countries respecting not only each other’s sovereignty but that of other nations too. He should give an assurance that political differences between Australia and China would be discussed privately before being disclosed publicly if they can’t be resolved.
Cameron Leckie
In his December intervention, Paul Keating stated that Taiwan is of no national security interest to Australia. If Paul Keating thinks Taiwan is not a vital security interest for Australia, one can only imagine what he might think about Ukraine.
Cameron Leckie served as an officer in the Australian Army for 24 years. An agricultural engineer, he is currently a PhD candidate. He predicts that the war in Ukraine will prove to be a self-inflicted damage to the West as a major power bloc.
He says Western leaders have been afflicted by three delusions about Ukraine.
The first delusion was that Ukraine could be bought into the Western sphere of influence without a violent reaction from Russia. There is a long history of senior Western officials warning against NATO expansion into Ukraine and Georgia, including the current CIA Director Williams Burns, when he was Ambassador to Russia.
The second delusion is that Ukraine can win the war against Russia.
Ukraine is suffering up to 1000 casualties per day and its military infrastructure has been progressively and methodically destroyed. Ukraine will not be able to launch a sustained counter-offensive. Ukrainian officials have called for 1000 artillery pieces, 300 multiple launch rocket systems and 500 tanks from its allies, just to achieve ‘parity’ with Russia. This would require an order of magnitude increase over and above the incredible amount of support already provided to Ukraine, which has already strained NATO inventories. It is unrealistic to believe that such a level of support can be provided let alone the supplies needed for a lengthy war of attrition.
Defence analyst David Davis has also written that there is no military pathway for Ukraine to defeat Russia. Caroline Glick’s ‘Middle East News Hour’ reaches the same conclusion- the US and NATO are losing catastrophically in Ukraine.
The third delusion is that sanctions, the West’s primary response to Russia’s invasion, would be effective in either pressuring Russia to cease its campaign in Ukraine or weakening and isolating Russia, or perhaps cause the Russian leadership to be overthrown from within. The sanctions have had a substantial effect on the Russian economy. But the sanctions storm has been weathered with the Rubel being the best performing currency this year, inflation falling, profits from energy exports surging and President Putin having near record popularity.
Whilst the sanctions are failing against Russia, they have been extremely effective in exacerbating the already deteriorating economic circumstances in the Western world. The sanctions can best be described as an own goal. With the UK suffering the greatest fall in living standards on record, Germany’s top union official warning of the permanent collapse of major industries due to the price of natural gas, inflation out of control, supply chain disruptions and food and energy price rises creating real pain for economies that had not yet recovered from the COVID-19 triggered economic downturn- the West, and much of the developing world, is primed for major political and social convulsions.
Non-Western countries are unimpressed. Alternative institutional arrangements, trade agreements and security architectures are slowly but surely being developed and enlarged with multi-polarity at their core.
[1] https://www.19fortyfive.com/2022/06/there-is-no-military-path-for-ukraine-to-defeat-russia/