Australia's Strategy, or Why We Fight

[freediver]

I think it's cultural in origin. Military alliances between two democracies are only as good as the level of trust between the citizens.

[Rorschach]

2 brief points re the topic title.
Our strategy is based on the fact we are a large continent with a sparse population, we cannot defend it on our own. Hence ANZUS, a military alliance and the proliferation of trading alliances.
As for the rest... still reading it.
As for Aussie's comment, still waiting for a reply.

[Rorschach]

Australia is one of the wealthiest countries in the world, ranked in the top 10 in gross domestic product per capita.

Qatar, Luxembourg, Singapore, Norway, Brunei, United Arab Emirates, United States, Hong Kong, Switzerland, Netherlands, Australia, Austria, Ireland, Canada, Kuwait… is but 1 list. Puts us at 11, not in the top 10.

It is one of the most isolated major countries in the world; that is a matter of opinion,

It is close to New Zealand and Indonesia and the major trading nations of South East Asia.

it occupies an entire united continent,

True, it is an island continent.

is difficult to invade and rarely is threatened.

That is a matter of opinion. But so far it has rarely been threatened. The US came to our aid in WWII. With which we have a Military Treaty.

Normally, we would not expect a relatively well-off and isolated country to have been involved in many wars.

The US is well off and fairly isolated. Yet it too has been involved in many wars also. Britain too is an island and not part of a major continent yet it too has been involved in many wars.

This has not been the case for Australia and, more interesting, it has persistently not been the case, even under a variety of governments. Ideology does not explain the phenomenon in this instance.

Well that is not particularly true. Ideology has indeed been a motive in several conflicts.

Since 1900, Australia has engaged in several wars and other military or security interventions (including the Boer War, World War I, World War II and the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Afghanistan and Iraq) lasting about 40 years total. Put another way, Australia has been at war for more than one-third of the time since the Commonwealth of Australia was established in 1901. In only one of these wars, World War II, was its national security directly threatened, and even then a great deal of its fighting was done in places such as Greece and North Africa rather than in direct defense of Australia. This leaves us to wonder why a country as wealthy and seemingly secure as Australia would have participated in so many conflicts.

I’ll let someone else do the Maths for the US and Britain. One shouldn’t forget that Australians were British till late last century and that relationship involved us in wars as has our relationship with the US and the UN.

It seems to me that a gathering premise is already falling apart.

[Rorschach]

Importance of Sea-Lanes

To understand Australia, we must begin by noting that its isolation does not necessarily make it secure.

True

Exports, particularly of primary commodities, have been essential to Australia. From wool exported to Britain in 1901 to iron ore exported to China today, Australia has had to export commodities to finance the import of industrial products and services in excess of what its population could produce for itself.

Most other countries manufacture and trade as well.

Without this trade, Australia could not have sustained its economic development and reached the extraordinarily high standard of living that it has.

True. Like most countries.

This leads to Australia's strategic problem. In order to sustain its economy it must trade, and given its location, its trade must go by sea.

Could any other country sustain its way of life and economy without trade?

Australia is not in a position, by itself, to guarantee the security of its sea-lanes, due to its population size and geographic location.

Been there conceded that. Yet Australia's remoteness seems to aid in this and we have no special arrangements guaranteeing those things, in place, now. Also International sea lanes are not Australia’s sole responsibility. Oh and sea is not the only means of contact with the rest of the world.

Australia therefore encounters two obstacles. First, it must remain competitive in world markets for its exports. Second, it must guarantee that its goods will reach those markets. If its sea-lanes are cut or disrupted, the foundations of Australia's economy are at risk.

But as pointed out International Sea Lanes are not the sole responsibility of Australia.

Think of Australia as a creature whose primary circulatory system is outside of its body. Such a creature would be extraordinarily vulnerable and would have to develop unique defense mechanisms. This challenge has guided Australian strategy.

Any country that imports, whether an island or land-locked is in the same position.

First, Australia must be aligned with -- or at least not hostile to -- the leading global maritime power. In the first part of Australia's history, this was Britain. More recently, it has been the United States. Australia's dependence on maritime trade means that it can never simply oppose countries that control or guarantee the sea-lanes upon which it depends; Australia cannot afford to give the global maritime power any reason to interfere with its access to sea-lanes.

Yet at any time in the history of the planet the Military balance and hence the “maritime power” may change. Hence Australia is “friendly” with all major powers. As are other countries.

Second, and more difficult, Australia needs to induce the major maritime powers to protect Australia's interests more actively.

Well so far it hasn’t had to.

For example, assume that the particular route Australia depends on to deliver goods to a customer has choke points far outside Australia's ability to influence. Assume further that the major power has no direct interest in that choke point. Australia must be able to convince the major power of the need to keep that route open. Merely having amiable relations will not achieve that. Australia must make the major power dependent upon it so that Australia has something to offer or withdraw in order to shape the major power's behavior.

Well the US isn't dependent on Australia. Also that is why there are Maritime Laws and global agreements. It is the direct concern of the trading partners to see that trade can continue unhindered. Mind you in past wars there have been ways around said “choke points” after all the world is a very big place. Would China allow the US to blockade Australia? Would it see that as an act of war?

[Rorschach]

Creating Dependency

Global maritime powers are continually involved in conflict -- frequently regional and at times global.

Well no… that is not true.

Global interests increase the probability of friction, and global power spawns fear. There is always a country somewhere that has an interest in reshaping the regional balance of power, whether to protect itself or to exact concessions from the global power.

Yet we have the UN and other Organisations to help resolve and mediate such issues. We have trade agreements and economic forums with national members to plan and resolve issues. Australia largely is not involved directly in these issues except in a regional way. Out of the top 30 Military powers none are at war with each other, and haven’t been for decades if ever.

Another characteristic of global powers is that they always seek allies. This is partly for political reasons, in order to create frameworks for managing their interests peacefully. This is also for military reasons. Given the propensity for major powers to engage in war, they are always in need of additional forces, bases and resources. A nation that is in a position to contribute to the global power's wars is in a position to secure concessions and guarantees. For a country such as Australia that is dependent on sea-lanes for its survival, the ability to have commitments from a major power to protect its interests is vital.

Yet we rarely see major powers at war with each other. We could easily allow China, the US, the UK, Japan, etc access to resources all are or have been major trading partners. Trade is used by many countries to ensure or support world peace.

Deployment in the Boer War was partly based on Australian ideology as a British colony, but in fact Australia had little direct interest in the outcome of the war. It also was based on Australia's recognition that it needed Britain's support as a customer and a guarantor of its security. The same can be said for the wars in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan. Australia might have had some ideological interest in these wars, but its direct national security was only marginally at stake in them. However, Australian participation in these wars helped to make the United States dependent on Australia to an extent, which in turn induced the United States to guarantee Australian interests.

Glad you finally concede points I made earlier. Face it, Australia globally is small beans. Diplomatically and Militarily. The US does not need us as much as we need them, even if only as a bluff. But we do have the ANZUS treaty. Which so far has been binding and is reciprocal.

There were also wars that could have concluded with a transformation of the global system. World War I and World War II were attempts by some powers to overthrow the existing global order and replace it with a different one. Australia emerged from the old political order, and it viewed the prospect of a new order as both unpredictable and potentially dangerous. Australia's participation in those wars was still in part about making other powers dependent upon it, but it also had to do with the preservation of an international system that served Australia. (In World War II there was also an element of self-defense: Australia needed to protect itself from Japan and certainly from a Japanese-controlled Pacific Ocean and potentially the Indian Ocean.)

Australia’s interest in both World Wars was primarily “subservience” to Britain and the Monarchy as Australians were British subjects. Seems to me also you are forgetting the British Commonwealth in all of this. Or are ignorant of it. Australia’s allegiance and focus changed when Britain could not or would not come to it’s aid during WWII. So the US Alliance was formed.

I note Australia has not created a dependency with the US, it does not need us. But we do need it. Or at least be seen by other nations to be close to it.

[Rorschach]

Alternative Strategy

Australia frequently has been tempted by the idea of drawing away from the global power and moving closer to its customers. This especially has been the case since the United States replaced Britain as the global maritime power. In the post-World War II period, as Asian economic activity increased, Asian demand increased for Australian raw materials, from food to industrial minerals. First Japan and then China became major customers of Australia.

Firstly I’d just like to point out that Maritime Power is not these days the greatest power as it may have been in the past. Today we fly, hence Air Power is most probably the top of the Power Tree. Distance and speed is covered more effectively by Air than by Sea. One reason Australia has developed Asian markets is because of the relative closeness of that region and those countries. Japan like China now needs the natural resources Australia can deliver so they can further develop their infrastructure and manufacturing base.

The Australian alternative (aside from isolation, which would be economically unsustainable) was to break or limit its ties to the United States and increasingly base its national security on Japan or, later, on China. The theory was that China, for example, was the rising power and was essential to Australian interests because of its imports, imports that it might secure from other countries. The price of the relationship with the United States -- involvement in American conflicts -- was high. Therefore, this alternative strategy would have limited Australia's exposure to U.S. demands while cementing its relationship with its primary customer, China.

So far this has not been so and is currently not an issue.

This strategy makes sense on the surface, but there are two reasons that Australia, though it has toyed with the strategy, has not pursued it. The first is the example of Japan. Japan appeared to be a permanent, dynamic economic power. But during the 1990s, Japan shifted its behavior, and its appetite for Australian goods stagnated. Economic relationships depend on the ability of the customer to buy, and that depends on the business cycle, political stability and so on. A strategy that would have created a unique relationship between Australia and Japan would have quickly become unsatisfactory. If, as we believe, China is in the midst of an economic slowdown, entering into a strategic relationship with China would also be a mistake, or at the very least, a gamble.

In the end, Japan is a limited economy, though in the past a very large and powerful one, but compared to China; land mass, population and potential for future development it is limited. Entering a relationship with any country is a gamble. The US for example isn’t in the best shape it has ever been in either. It has much of what Australia has and so is not dependent on imports from Australia.

The second reason Australia has not changed its strategy is that, no matter what relationship it has with China or Japan, the sea-lanes are under the control of the United States. In the event of friction with China, the United States, rather than guaranteeing the sea-lanes for Australia, might choose to block them. In the end, Australia can sell to many countries, but it must always use maritime routes. Thus, it has consistently chosen its relationship with Britain or the United States rather than commit to any single customer or region.

As I stated previously any such rogue actions by the US or other states would be seen as aggression and would not be tolerated globally. Pressure would be brought to bear. China may see such a move as an act of war. Blockading Australia would be no small venture. China could also source resources from other countries, South America for example or even Africa. Australia has as you say not committed to a single customer, to do so would be economically retrograde.

Australia is in a high-risk situation, even though superficially it appears secure.

I doubt it is realistically more insecure than any other nation. Even though it would need a much bigger military capacity to defend itself successfully from aggressors on it’s own. Australia, even though it has its own Uranium supplies, has up till now, stayed clear of a nuclear option for aggression and deterrence.

http://www.informationdissemination.net ... power.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

In the world of today, the first function of our dominant navy is to ensure the US can maintain the rules of the international order. A book by George Modelski and William Thompson entitled Seapower in Global Politics 1494-1993 does a quantitative study that correlates sea power with overall national power. Their conclusion is that command of the sea allows its possessor to set the rules of the international order, which the US did in 1945 and at least reinforced them again in 1992. Once the global system became truly universal, the dominant navy's function is to help provide system security and flow, which includes preventing war. A war between the US and China is not very likely, and a global naval war even less likely. However, in the event something was to happen, it most likely would be a sea control fight somewhere along the Chinese littoral, ranging from the Yellow Sea down to the Straits of Malacca. If the Chinese follow their own script of “localized warfare under high tech conditions,” and If we play our cards right, we neutralize the PLAN relatively quickly, and it then becomes a matter of China deciding whether to embargo the US by not buying from us or not selling to us. If we thought through the matter objectively, we would see that our preference would be for everyone’s commerce, including China’s, to continue unmolested throughout the whole affair.

Commercial shipping is perhaps less threatened in today’s world than ever before. Where shipping is potentially threatened is two places: the Strait of Hormuz and the South China Sea. Hormuz is a systemic vulnerability because there is no alternate route around it. The South China Sea is a vulnerability because China seems to be claiming it as internal waters, which would present a critical constriction on a key conduit of world trade, a “strategic maritime crossroads” according to Admiral Greenert, all the more so because if she were successful in this project, the precedent would open the door for 38% of the world’s oceans, now defined as exclusive economic zones, to become claimable as sovereign territory, which would ultimately generate a mare clausum. In reality, both the USN and PLAN have a shared interest in keeping Hormuz open, just as both navies cooperate in anti-piracy efforts off Somalia. However, in the South China Sea, our interests collide. China’s “Mahanian” navy is being designed to muscle out both the USN and the small forces of bordering countries.

So, to get back to the original question, yes, one could make the case that China is becoming a real Mahanian power, and this is of concern to the United States, but not for the reasons I suspect are behind the question. There should be no race to achieve Mahanian sea power. Rather, it would be better for both China and the US to steer a course away from Mahan’s vision and logic. The current US maritime strategy, A Cooperative Strategy for 21st Century Seapower” (CS21) incorporates valid modern logic based on the interdependent global system. If we could convince the Chinese to adopt this view, both nations would be more secure in the future. Both the US and China are great nations that have good and sufficient reasons for maintaining large navies, but an attachment to Mahanian thinking – on both our parts - is a recipe for conflict and war in a way not so very unlike the British/German naval rivalry leading up to World War I. The question suggests that America needs a new round of naval education. We must give Mahan credit for performing this function 120 years ago, and his lessons served the nation well. However, the world has moved on, and we must release our attachment to Mahan and engage in the kind of creative thinking in our time that he exercised in his.

Its options are to align with the United States and accept the military burdens that entails, or to commit to Asia in general and China in particular. Until that time when an Asian power can guarantee the sea-lanes against the United States -- a time that is far in the future -- taking the latter route would involve pyramiding risks. Add to this that the relationship would depend on the uncertain future of Asian economies -- and all economic futures are now uncertain -- and Australia has chosen a lower-risk approach.

Australia does not have to accept any military burdens outside the parameters of ANZUS. The likely hood of Australia turning down a request though is small as long as both major parties are in government in a majority. However, the US are quite capable of defending and attacking others on their own without the need of Australian forces, which are by comparison very small.

This approach has three components. The first is deepening economic relations with the United States to balance its economic dependencies in Asia.

Yet we have free trade agreements with China and the US both of which favour the larger more powerful countries.

The second is participating in American wars in order to extract guarantees from the United States on sea-lanes.

Which it hasn’t done.

The final component is creating regional forces able to handle events in Australia's near abroad, from the Solomon Islands through the Indonesian archipelago. But even here, Australian forces would depend on U.S. cooperation to manage threats.

Which is unlikely and as yet haven’t been created.

The Australian strategy therefore involves alignment with the leading maritime power, first Britain and then the United States, and participation in their wars. We began by asking why a country as wealthy and secure as Australia would be involved in so many wars. The answer is that its wealth is not as secure as it seems.

The Australian strategy involves much fence sitting and compromise. Trying to keep juggling as many balls as it can handle at any one time. It relies upon friendship, trade and cooperation, to keep the peace. It cannot defend itself from a full frontal attack by a large aggressor, and so steers a course which is intended to keep all potential aggressors on side.

[Rorschach]

The resulting treaty was concluded at San Francisco on 1 September 1951, and entered into force on 29 April 1952. The treaty bound the signatories to recognise that an armed attack in the Pacific area on any of them would endanger the peace and safety of the others. It stated 'The Parties will consult together whenever in the opinion of any of them the territorial integrity, political independence or security of any of the Parties is threatened in the Pacific'. The three nations also pledged to maintain and develop individual and collective capabilities to resist attack.

http://www.skwirk.com.au/p-c_s-14_u-116 ... ernational" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ANZUS" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.reference.com/motif/history/ ... zus-treaty" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.dfat.gov.au/geo/new_zealand/anzus.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[freediver]

On the issue of isolation, this is usually a good thing. Land borders are much harder to defend. It is what allowed the UK and Japan to project so much power. The US is similar - a friendly neighbour to the north, and poor people to the south.

[Jovial Monk]

A lunatic drooled “our aid in WWII. With which we have a Military Treaty.”

We have a treaty with WWII?

[Rorschach]

The actual quote...

The US came to our aid in WWII. With which we have a Military Treaty.

Why did you even bother to lie.