Advertisement

'Alarm bells': how China's assertiveness led to Australia's defence overhaul

<span>Photograph: Lukas Coch/EPA</span>
Photograph: Lukas Coch/EPA

It may well be the biggest shift in Australia’s defence strategy in decades.

The Australian government has ordered the military to focus mainly on Australia’s backyard, to acquire longer-range missiles to build up its own ability to deter threats from countries such as China, and cautioned the United States not to necessarily expect Australian participation in future coalition efforts in places like the Middle East.

Dr Andrew Carr, a senior lecturer at the Australian National University’s strategic and defence studies centre, says last week’s update of defence policy is probably the country’s most significant strategic review since the 1970s. The “alarm bells” about developments in the Indo-Pacific region in general – and the rising assertiveness of China in particular – are “ringing”.

While a lot of the initial focus of the government’s announcements was the pledge to spend $270bn over the coming decade on new and upgraded capability, the overall growth in annual defence funding closely tracks the path foreshadowed in the 2016 defence white paper.

Experts say the real significance is how Australia assesses the security environment and its own need to play a greater role in the Indo-Pacific region.

Related: Australia to acquire long-range missiles as PM warns of dangerous post-Covid-19 world

Australia still points to the importance of the US as its enduring security ally and as a supplier of technology, and the door is not entirely closed to international coalition efforts – but Carr says “the way that we’re talking about the United States has really shifted”.

“So instead of kind of saying we’ll work via the United States to achieve what we want in global or Indo-Pacific terms, we’re now saying, well, we’ll have to do it, and hopefully the US can support our efforts,” he tells the Guardian.

“The whole kind of basis has really shifted, even if the alliance is still critical to our ability to do anything on our own.”

As the prime minister, Scott Morrison, says, Australia remains prepared to make military contributions further afield if it is in Australia’s national interest to do so and if it doesn’t degrade the capacity to respond to any challenge in the immediate region. But, Morrison reasons, “if we are to be a better and more effective ally, we must be prepared to invest in our own security”.

“This is a very clear shift away from our past practice of trying to cooperate with the United States in regional and international coalitions,” Carr observes.

“And instead, we’re focussing much more on our immediate region and what we can do for our own defence.”

Prioritising the Indo-Pacific as the focus for Australia’s defence activities is “the simplest but most important policy shift being ushered in”, according to Ashley Townshend, the director of foreign policy and defence at the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

Townshend says Australia has spent over $15bn on military operations in the Middle East since 2001 compared with less than $4bn in our region – “an unstrategic use of resources”.

Related: So, we are getting ready to take on China? That’s brave – but is it worth it? | Allan Behm, Ashley Townshend and Brendan Thomas-Noone

Morrison used a speech last Wednesday to urge Australia to “prepare for a post-Covid world that is poorer, more dangerous and more disorderly”.

He evoked “very haunting” parallels with the economic trauma and uncertainty of the 1930s and 1940s when he spoke of a more contested region, and he laid out plans to buy longer-range missiles, beef up cyber warfare and increase the focus on Australia’s immediate neighbourhood.

These moves come at a time when the Covid-19 pandemic is sharpening aspects of competition between the US and China, according to the newly released defence strategy document.

It says major powers “have become more assertive in advancing their strategic preferences and seeking to exert influence, including China’s active pursuit of greater influence in the Indo-Pacific”.

“Australia is concerned by the potential for actions such as the establishment of military bases, which could undermine stability in the Indo-Pacific and our immediate region,” it says.

It also warns that “growing regional military capabilities, and the speed at which they can be deployed, mean Australia can no longer rely on a timely warning ahead of conflict occurring”.

Australia’s defence minister, Linda Reynolds, gave a speech in Canberra last Thursday in which she argued: “Our region is now facing the most consequential strategic realignment since the end of World War Two.”

Against that backdrop, the government also appears increasingly prepared to criticise China over some of its military-related activities.

Reynolds said Australia had welcomed China’s pursuit of greater influence in the Indo-Pacific region “where that pursuit advances mutual interest in security, prosperity and stability”. She added pointedly: “And where such actions have unsettled the stability of our region, we have joined with others in clearly expressing our concerns.”

The Australian government also cancelled a number of smaller defence projects – including a “roll-on, roll-off wharf” in Darwin and two new air-to-air refuellers – as it sharpened the military’s focus on deterring threats in the region. The force structure plan reveals several proposals that were included in the 2016 white paper “are no longer required”.

These include the “northern advanced joint training area” – a proposal for a site for large-scale, joint and combined amphibious training exercises and a potential rail link to RAAF Base Tindal, near Katherine in the Northern Territory, to transport explosive ordnance and bulk fuel.

Related: Morrison sees strategic dangers ahead. Here's hoping he doesn't lose sight of the economic ones | Katharine Murphy

The government has committed to spending about $800m on the purchase of anti-ship cruise missiles from the US navy, which have a range of 370km and will initially be used on F/A-18F Super Hornet aircraft. Australia is also looking at acquiring sophisticated maritime long-range missiles, air-launched strike and anti-ship weapons, as well as additional land-based weapons.

Total defence funding is set to increase from $42.2bn in 2020-21 to $73.7bn in 2029-30, following the growth path already foreshadowed previously, but over that period a greater share of that will go towards acquisitions.

China gave a relatively subdued response to Australia’s defence policy update, with the foreign ministry spokesman, Zhao Lijian, saying he would “leave that to Australia” but “all countries should avoid an arms race and refrain from purchasing unnecessary military equipment”.

The Australian government is meanwhile placing increasing emphasis on the need to build up “a robust, resilient and innovative defence industrial base, a base that maximises Australian participation and supports highly skilled Australian jobs and local investment”.

While the update shows a subtle shift in Australia’s engagement with the US, there will be intense focus on how the new plans affect the already strained relationship between Australia and China.

Reynolds says the defence policy documents recognise “the reality of the world we actually live in”. She says Australia has always welcomed the economic rise of China and would “encourage China to be a productive and a peaceful partner in our region”.

The leader of the Greens, Adam Bandt, argues “spending billions more on weapons won’t make Australia safer and may in fact increase tensions in the region”.

“Australia cannot outgun China,” Bandt says. “As a small to medium-sized power, our security lies in joining with other like-minded countries to strengthen multilateral institutions and ensure a rules-based international order.”

Allan Behm, head of the international and security affairs program at the Australia Institute, argues China must be engaged, not contained. He says the timing is worrying “because it really does look as though we’re trying to muscle up to China, which I think is the wrong way to present and develop our posture”.

But Peter Jennings, the executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, says Australia does not necessarily have to deter China across the board. “We just have to persuade them that the cost of offensive operations against Australia is going to be too high,” he says.

Asked if the moves announced last week were enough to deter China, Jennings says: “I don’t think it will be, by itself, sufficient but I think what’s happened here is we are on the start of a journey where the government understands what needs to be done.”