For most of the Cold War, America’s allies did surprisingly
little to defend themselves, preferring to rely on the U.S. That
dependent mentality continues, especially among the populous and
prosperous countries of Europe. The election of President Barack
Obama notwithstanding, the Europeans have proved no more willing
than before to offer additional combat support in Afghanistan.
However, Australia is breaking the mold, preparing to do much
more to protect itself and its region. Washington should
encourage its other friends to follow suit.
Canberra issued its previous defense white paper a decade ago.
Observed Defense Minister Joel Fitzgibbon: “the biggest changes
to our outlook over the period have been the rise of China, the
emergence of India and the beginning of the end of the so-called
unipolar moment; the almost two-decade-long period in which the
pre-eminence of our principal ally, the United States, was
without question.”
Australia now discerns a future in which “there will be a number
of other powers floating about, China and India, for example, the
re-emergence of Russia,” he added. Particularly important will be
the People’s Republic of China, which said Fitzgibbon, “will be
the strongest Asian military power, by a considerable margin.”
Although the U.S. isn’t going away anytime soon, its relative
domination will shrink and its willingness to make war for its
allies will diminish. Different circumstances require different
policies. Explained Fitzgibbon: “We need to be able to defend our
country without necessarily relying on the assistance of other
nation states.”
That means a military build-up. Prime Minister Kevin Rudd
observed: “It’s as plain as day that there is a significant
military and naval build-up across the Asia-Pacific region.” He
noted that “Either you can simply choose to ignore that fact, or
to incorporate that into a realistic component of Australia’s
strategic assumptions about what this region will look like over
the next two decades.” In May the Rudd government issued a
140-page
white paper, “Defending Australia in the Asia Pacific
Century: Force 2030.”
The report announced: “The government has decided that
Australia’s defense policy should continue to be founded on the
principle of self-reliance in the direct defense of Australia and
in relation to our unique strategic interests, but with a
capacity to do more when required, consistent with those
strategic interests that we might share with others, and within
the limits of our resources.” To influence security in the
Asia-Pacific, the Rudd government has proposed upping real,
inflation-adjusted military spending by three percent annually
through 2018 and then 2.2 percent through 2030.
That’s a $72 billion increase in military outlays, a meaningful
investment for a nation of about 20 million. Canberra plans to
double the number of submarines, replacing existing models with
more sophisticated vessels capable of firing cruise missiles.
Also on Australia’s procurement list are “hunter-killer”
submarines, Aegis-class destroyers, frigates, sealift ships, and
helicopter-carrying amphibious vessels.
Canberra would enhance its aerial capabilities by adding roughly
100 F-35 Lightning Joint Strike Fighters, 46 Tiger Helicopters,
new transport planes, and advanced surveillance aircraft.
Finally, Australia plans to expand its armor and artillery forces
and increase the total number of military personnel. Explained
Prime Minister Rudd: “Force 2030 will mean the best fighter jets,
the most versatile armored vehicles and the most sophisticated
submarines available to defend Australia’s national security.”
Canberra wants to be capable of dealing with a worst case
scenario, including by projecting power beyond its own waters if
necessary.
It’s a significant effort and is being criticized by the
conservative opposition. Obviously, even with this new defense
program Australia alone cannot contain a more aggressive PRC, if
Beijing’s rise eventually proves to be less than peaceful.
Nevertheless, China’s future domination is not guaranteed:
China remains a poor country with substantial social and ethnic
divisions. Moreover, Canberra’s planned expansion demonstrates an
effective strategy for other Asian nations: create a potent
military which would exact a high price for any aggression by any
nation.
In fact, the PRC’s reaction to Australia’s plans demonstrates
that Chinese officials are concerned. For instance, Rear Adm.
Yang Yi called Australia’s plans “crazy,” “dangerous,” and
“stupid,” and said Canberra risked “stimulating an arms race in
the region.” Other PRC officials anonymously complained of
Australia’s “Cold War mentality.” Imagine how Beijing would react
to substantially more defense spending by South Korea, Japan, and
other states.
Canberra is well ahead of the allied pack, but a similar realism
seems to be slowly creeping into the policies of both South Korea
and Japan. Prime Minister Rudd and South Korean President Lee
Myung-bak met in March. The two leaders denied that their joint
security statement was directed against Japan, but President Lee
opined that “we have the issue of China building their military
spending.”
The Republic of Korea spends nearly $30 billion a year on
defense. The ROK long has faced a serious security threat from
North Korea, but the South has more than twice the population and
between 30 and 40 times the GDP of the North. With Pyongyang busy
testing nuclear weapons and shooting off missiles, Seoul finally
appears ready to do more.
The Lee government recently issued the latest update to the
National Defense Reform 2020 plan. More money will be spent with
the goal of “stemming and eliminating to the maximum degree”
threats from the North, including attacking Pyongyang’s “bases as
quickly as possible to prevent launches no matter where they
are.” Seoul hopes to increase its anti-missile capabilities,
along with adding or improving satellites, artillery, early
warning aircraft and drones, and intelligence-gathering assets.
This is a good start, though much more could and should be done.
Equally important is Japan. The U.S. imposed Article Nine on the
defeated nation after the end of World War II, but soon came to
regret the forced disarmament. So did Tokyo, which created a
modest “Self-Defense Force,” though for decades this cleverly
named military was not deployed outside of the Japanese islands.
Now, however, with both China growing and North Korea
threatening, Japan appears to be slowly if irregularly adopting a
more realistic perspective. Tokyo sank a North Korean spy ship in
2001 and is considering attempting to shoot down any North Korean
missiles that threaten Japanese territory. Japan also has
provided unarmed assistance to the UN peacekeeping mission in
Cambodia and U.S. operations in Afghanistan and Iraq. Two years
ago Japan raised the Japanese Defense Agency to cabinet status.
Tokyo still spends far less than it could, but its capabilities
are likely to grow as the international threat environment
becomes more unsettled. In May Japanese Foreign Minister Hirofumi
Nakasoni visited Australia and called China’s military build-up
an “issue of some concern.” Japanese officials have begun
debating the unthinkable: creating the capability to preemptively
take out North Korean missiles and even developing nuclear
weapons. “Calls for the debate are escalating,” explained
Takehiko Yamamoto, a professor at Tokyo’s Waseda University. The
growing number of Japanese advocates of a larger military split
between those who would amend Article Nine or simply interpret
the pacifist provision away. “We won’t sit and wait for death,”
said Gen Nakatani, a former civilian defense chief now heading
the Liberal Democratic Party panel on security policy, in May.
Other East and South Asian nations too, are arming. The
International Institute of Strategic Studies notes “substantial
evidence of continuing efforts by several Southeast Asian states
to modernize their armed forces.” For instance, Bangladesh,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Pakistan, Singapore, Thailand, and Vietnam
all are constructing submarines. A plethora of better-armed
smaller states may be unnerving to some, but will further
constrain the dominant regional powers. Such a build-up also puts
a premium on America’s democratic friends doing more, since they
can ill afford to rely on Washington to protect them from
everyone else.
Indeed, the most important incentive for Australia to strengthen
its forces is recognition that America is likely to do less.
Canberra’s White Paper lauds the continuing U.S.-Australian
alliance, but delicately warns of changes to come: “the United
States might find itself preoccupied and stretched in some parts
of the world such that its ability to shift attention and project
power into other regions, when it needs to, is
constrained.” In fact, Americans concerned about paying for
Medicare, Social Security, and accumulated debts aren’t likely to
want to keep spending as much as the rest of the world combined
to protect wealthy friends, like Australia. And as Beijing
develops its own potent military with the ability deter U.S.
involvement, Washington will be far less likely to risk war to
micro-manage local and regional disputes in East Asia.
The U.S. should make the same point to Japan and South Korea, as
well as other friendly states, such as the Philippines,
Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand. It is time for them to take over
their own defense responsibilities, instead of sitting idly by
assuming that Washington will come to the rescue in any crisis.
The U.S. cannot forever be the world’s 911 number. While most of
America’s allies hope the good times of U.S. subsidies go on
forever, Australia is more realistic. Recognizing that Washington
is not likely to forever patrol the globe, the Rudd government is
preparing Australia to be militarily self-sufficient. The rest of
America’s military dependents should do likewise.
