Having a strategic policy think tank co-funded by some of the world’s largest arms manufacturers is inconsistent with providing sound policy advice that is in the broader national interest. Peter Jennings recent Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI) Strategist article is a desperate attempt to wrangle more taxpayer’s dollars for unnecessary defence expenditure.
The article, titled Preparing for the crisis after the crisis, describes how China is using the COVID-19 pandemic to emerge strategically stronger than the United States and its allies in the Asia-Pacific. Jennings, ASPIs Executive Director, describes a number of actions by the Chinese Government, ranging from propaganda through to military drills, which aim to extract ‘maximum advantage for itself at the expense of every other country.’ He then goes on to speculate how China may use its current advantage to create a crisis over Taiwan. From this speculation Jennings then proposes a number of steps the Australian Government should take in response; the key one being an enormous increase in defence spending from just under 2% percent of GDP to around 3.2%.
There is actually quite a lot in the article that I agree with. That China aims to emerge strategically stronger than the United States is neither controversial nor surprising but rather an acceleration of a pre-existing trend. A co-ordinated response to Chinese military opportunism by regional actors, if it was to occur (bravado via China’s English newspaper the Global Times and heightened military exercising does not count), is also reasonable. A new Defence White Paper is definitely required as is focusing on supply chain security, both of which I called for in my last P&I contribution. However from these reasonable recommendations to a requirement for a massive increase in Australian defence spending requires a considerable leap of logic.
Jennings’ seems to equate the defence of Taiwan, which the Australian Government recognises as being part of the People’s Republic of China, with the defence of Australia. Whilst Australia should actively discourage any military adventurism by the Chinese Government, just as it should discourage the United States’ tendency towards military adventurism, Australia is under no compulsion to involve itself in a conflict involving China and Taiwan. Indeed it is very difficult to see how being involved in such a conflict would make any real difference to the outcome or benefit Australia. The consequences could very well be catastrophic for both our national security and the economy.
Nowhere does Jennings indicate exactly how Australia could involve itself militarily in such as conflict. At best any Australian contribution to a conflict in the South China Sea would be token compared to the potential size of the other forces involved. The navy of the People’s Liberation Army, the largest in the world, has over 370 surface combatants and 66 submarines. Even if Australia committed all of its available surface combatants this would only amount to a handful of frigates, destroyers and submarines. China has an extensive range of missile systems, including hypersonic missiles, against which even the Carrier Battle Groups of the United States have no realistic chance of defence. The best our Navy has to counter this threat is the new Air Warfare Destroyers with a maximum missile defence range of only 150 kilometres against non-hypersonic missiles. An Australian naval contingent would be extremely vulnerable. Just how many ships and sailors lives should we be prepared to sacrifice to defend Taiwan?
Whether we like it or not, China is Australia’s largest trading partner and will remain so for many years to come. With our economy already reeling from the economic impacts of the pandemic, increasing tensions with China, up to and including involving ourselves in a military conflict would have to be one of the most counterproductive decisions an Australian Government could make. China holds the upper hand in all the matters that count. Over half of Australia’s diesel fuel transits the South China Sea and would be placed at risk; China could withhold exports to Australia of a range of critical items whilst the global crash in demand for raw materials would limit any impact of Australia restricting exports to China. The risks are asymmetrical and in China’s favour. Conflict with China would in all likelihood be an act of economic suicide.
The fact that these considerations are not even mentioned, let alone considered, highlight the underlying motive for an article of this nature. I suspect that Jennings’ is reading the Canberra tea leaves and foresees the defence budget will be placed under a lot of pressure for the foreseeable future as the Government grapples with an economic crisis that will be at least on par with the Great Depression. It should be remembered that defence spending was cut by double digit percentages for several years during the Depression. Raising the spectre of Chinese military adventurism, good old fashioned ASPI fear mongering, is the go to play for justifying increased defence expenditure. It seems that for organisations such as ASPI no matter what the circumstance the solution is always the same; more defence spending.
The primary threats that Australia faces are economic and environmental, not military, a view at least partly shared by other contributors to the ASPI Strategist such as former Chief of the Defence Force Chris Barrie and retired Army officer Michael Thomas. With the Reserve Bank already printing money to support the economy; Australia does not have the resources required to fund a response to the pandemic, adapt to environmental threats and increase military spending. Perhaps the Government could save a few pennies by ceasing ASPIs funding. As demonstrated by Peter Jennings irresponsible call for an enormous increase in defence spending, it seems that having a strategic policy think tank co-funded by some of the world’s largest arms manufacturers is inconsistent with providing sound policy advice that is in the broader national interest.
Cameron Leckie served as an officer in the Australian Army for 24 years including three operational deployments. He maintains a keen interest in strategic affairs.
Cameron Leckie served as an officer in the Australian Army for 24 years. An agricultural engineer, he is currently a PhD candidate.
Comments
12 responses to “CAMERON LECKIE. Fear mongering by a think tank funded by arms manufacturers.”
As we approach ANZAC Day this Saturday, I hope all will remember that Anzac Day should not only cause us to reflect on the massive loss of life in the conflicts we have been involved in, often at the behest of “our great and powerful friends”, but also the utter stupidity of our leaders who led us down that path.The current Foreign Minister was only reflecting in ‘the glory’ of the idiotic nonsense coming from Trump in his verbal and economic battle with the PRC. To become involved in the dispute over Taiwan would like Vietnam, end in tears for Australia.As a Veteran myself, the last thing I want to see is our young people, like my generation, being sacrificed for no good reason. “Lest we forget”.
This feeble government should put a muzzle on Marise Payne who staggers about, scripted by the USA, with so little credibility as to be an embarrassment to Australia.
Surely we can find another University somewhere that requires a failed Foreign Affairs Minister to play the part of a Chancellor, as with Bishop at the ANU?
As said by Mr. MacIlwain above, surely it is worth the effort to make a friendly alliance with China not only to ‘keep the US at bay’, but for the good of all Australians and this emerging part of the world, letting the USA empire slide down the greasy pole, one day at a time, as is happening right now.
The US leaders, with their kind of objectives, their kind of policies are well past their use-by-date. The world does not need them.
Well, now we all know the sponsors of ASPI. What a collection of world destroyers.
In 1961, General Eisenhower used a final speech to warn about “the immense military establishment” that had joined with “a large arms industry.” Yes, 1961
What a collection. The USA and its military / industrial complex as advisers to our government. The very last thing we nee. The major part of that warning by General Eisenhower on his retirement…….
“In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists, and will persist.”
Every word from Peter Jennings comes from this self-serving, warmongering consortium.
Not in our interests at all.
“Peter Jennings has close ties to the Liberal Party”, so said Penny Wong airily dismissing yet another wrongheaded comment on relations with China that Jennings had made.
Just about the only since uncontested remark that Turnbull made when speaking to Leigh Sales was that the Right in the Party did not see him as one of them meaning that, for that dominant Tea Party like group which has emerged over the past twenty years, even the most febrile nod to Liberalism is anathema replaced, absent Turnbull and his kind, by petty bourgeois ignorance, class resentment, racist scapegoating and a large dollop of Crusader conviction. This is the party with which the bellicose ASPI has close ties and in a former world a like minded cohort made up the bulk of the SS. Poor fella my country.
The Australian Government does not recognise Taiwan as being a part of the PRC, far from it. Please read academic Mark Harrison to scrub up on Australia’s One China Policy https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/australia-s-one-china-policy-and-why-it-matters
ASPI “Fearmongering”?
It is their sole purpose in life. They have no other function but to run along in partnership with the ANU’s collection of tired old academic defence / security advisers, weary ex-ADF academics and hangers-on, pleased to have a job, all with nothing better to do and now operating under the careful and guiding eyes of Julie Bishop, Chancellor. Quel courage!
Just one point in response to this well written article.
PRC and Taiwan. 1972 was a world away, 48 years ago and Australia was another country. We had a touch of foreign policy independence. Not much, mind you. Not now though.
Raising our current policy stance on Taiwan might now encourage the Australian-paid mouthpiece for the US State Department, that anti-China advocate Marise Payne, a Foreign Minister no less, who after giving China yet another belt this week, may by that action may have created a climate to again encourage the US warmongers to tell our nodding acolytes on the Hill to change that position, double quick. And, of course, we will. It is just the way we are.
Sometimes, it is best to be let sleeping dogs (backbenchers) sleep. Taiwan? For the interest of our politicians, 180 kms off the coast of China. Look it up.
Finally. Let us demand to see details of ASPI funding. Could indicate the real reason for all this ‘aggravated’ Chinese finger-pointing, hate-speech.
Aggravated, in law, is “any circumstance attending the commission of a crime or tort which increases its guilt or enormity or adds to its injurious consequences, but which is above and beyond the essential constituents of the crime or tort itself”.
Spot on.
I recall another nation that sought to re-invigorate its economy by spending up big on armaments – Germany between the World Wars. In Australia today we can already see the ‘hawks’ associated with the Defence Establishment agitating for more to be spent on all things military.
I haven’t read the ASPI’s work, but the world would be much safer if nations had: (a) a more modest understanding of their national interest, and (b) a more comprehensive understanding of their national security.
On the former, if every country in the world had an extended concept of national interest that extends beyond its national borders, then we never be secure. We would always feel threatened by anything that happens outside our national borders. And what if (say) China says that its national security extends to ensuring that Australia always supplies the commodities that China needs? What if future China White Papers say that in the event of conflict, China needs to have a way to secure the supply of those commodities?
On the latter, national security is not simply about territorial integrity. It’s also about climate change, fostering global economic growth, ending the refugee crisis, mitigating the impact of pandemics when they occur, etc. All of which are best addressed by the world working together!
It’s fine for specialist think tanks to focus on particular areas for which they have competence. But one hopes that the government has a more comprehensive understanding of national security, and a more modest understanding of the reach of our national interest.
Hi Cameron,
Google tells me that “fear mongering” is ‘the action of deliberately arousing public fear or alarm about a particular issue’. I thought that it might have said something about ‘without providing evidence’. Of course, if one quotes relevant evidence, then the action would more rightly be described as ‘providing a warning’.
You conclude that “As demonstrated by Peter Jennings irresponsible call for an enormous increase in defence spending, it seems that having a strategic policy think tank co-funded by some of the world’s largest arms manufacturers is inconsistent with providing sound policy advice that is in the broader national interest”.
You provide no evidence of ASPI being funded by large arms manufacturers. If it was, you are asserting that this influences the views presented by Peter Jennings. You present no evidence for this either.
I’ve long been an advocate for open and transparent debate about issues related to national defence. Robust debate is essential, but there is no place for ‘fear mongering’. The debate that’s essential is that related to the threat assessment and how best to respond to it. Such debate can result in valid ‘warnings’ to government and the ADF.
Hello Bruce, thanks for your comment.
Perhaps I should have added a link to the ASPI funding sources which can be found in the annual report (https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/ad-aspi/2019-10/ASPI%20AR_18_19_acc.pdf?KUIH5L_aiOUu4hm96FaCXmN2cqEv5Do8=). The sponsors include BAE, Lockheed Martin, Northrop Grumman, Raytheon and Thales, all major arms manufacturers.
Having arms manufacturers fund a strategic policy think tank is equivalent to cigarette companies funding medical research into smoking.
Just as Peter Jennings has speculated about potential Chinese military action against Taiwan I too have speculated, which I believe I made clear, about the motivation behind his article.
He has used speculations about possible Chinese actions against Taiwan, which has no direct impact upon Australia’s security, as a justification for what is an enormous increase in defence spending. As you say a threat assessment should be provided which describes/links how this speculative Chinese action requires a corresponding increase in Australia’s defence spending. Peter Jennings did not provide this. Hence why I believe he is fear mongering to justify an increase that is not justified by the threat.
I have made a value judgement on such a call (to increase defence spending) as being irresponsible because of our current context (e.g. unfolding economic crisis). If we were to fund increased defence spending that would be at the cost to other sectors of society and the economy.
ASPI website lists Lockhed Martin, SAAB, Thales, Northrup Grumman, MBDA missiles amongst its ‘major’ sponsors; these are followed by the Gold, Silver and Bronze sponsors – the Australian Government being listed amongst the bronze.
I read recently of a top Australian security official passing through the ‘revolving door’ to join Lockheed Martin – name escapes me, but worrisome.
Bruce
ASPI’s funding is available from its company reports on its website. Cameron is right that ASPI is funded by arms and weapons systems manufacturers, foreign governments and institutions, as well as Australian governments departments. Commercial and other funding has grown during Jennings time as CEO.
That’s not to say their work shouldn’t be assessed on its merits.
I think that the Government’s current actions – one could say campaign – over the Coronavirus epidemic is a better example of “fear mongering without providing evidence”. What we have just had in this country, unlike those in Europe and elsewhere who have suffered so badly, can barely even be described as an epidemic, leave alone referred to and acted upon as a “Pandemic”. There have so far been in total only one tenth of the deaths occurring in a single day in our allies countries, and by all appearances the epidemic is now under control.
I agree with Cameron on the bias of Peter Jennings, which favours the multinational defence industries whether they are sponsors of ASPI or not. But I fear that Jenning’s proposals are dorothy dixers in that the Government has already decided that the recovery will be supercharged growth, led by tax cuts for big business and more military bonding with the arms manufacturers of the US, UK and Israel.
Another respected adviser on China, Hugh White, made much more realistic observations this morning on the ABC, while starting well by condemning Payne’s proposed “International enquiry” – into China. Perhaps in time he will go further, and observe that making a new and closer cooperative alliance with China to keep the US at bay would now be in our best interests.