Peter Jennings, Executive Director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), has launched an ad hominem attack belittling those who take a contrary approach to Australia-China relations rather than advocating for war preparations. But it is his poor grasp of his subject matter that is most disappointing.
In a piece published in both ASPI’s The Strategist blog and The Australian, Jennings maintains that “Beijing’s collection of local useful idiots are tested to see how far they will defend the indefensible behaviour of their patron”. This implies anyone disagreeing with the China hawks are somehow mentally deficient, and that failing to fall in behind the anti-China crowd is somehow treasonable. This language is inappropriate for a government funded organisation purportedly set up to foster an informed public debate on defence issues.
In his enthusiasm for Australia to decouple from China, its biggest trading partner, Jennings misrepresents and oversimplifies the issue. Although he claims there is “now a consensus that Australia must diversify its trade markets”, it still seems clear that the Australian government and the minerals extraction and export sectors, among others, are not part of that consensus. The economic and social disruption of exacerbating the trade spat with China, and the momentous task of finding new markets in a highly competitive world, are simply ignored by Jennings. Although Jennings might claim, ”Decades of diplomatic nuance in our China relationship have delivered nothing”, others might point to a long period of sustained prosperity off the back of a beneficial trading relationship.
Economics and trade policy aren’t ASPI’s brief, or supposed area of expertise; strategic policy is. Although this is not apparent from Jennings’ piece. First though it needs to be made clear that thinking that a more informed and nuanced approach to managing the relationship with China doesn’t mean denying or downplaying the abuses of the Uighurs or other minorities. It doesn’t indicate approval of authoritarian government. But these, along with many other objective facts, are part of the situation in which the Australian governments must manoeuvre, making judicious decisions about when to speak up publicly, when to make views known through government channels, and when to galvanise action. A balancing act Australia no longer seems able to perform, even when it is in its interests to do so.
On to strategic policy issues. Jennings notes the Australian Defence Minister announced that Australia and the US will cooperate on the development and testing of an air-breathing hypersonic cruise-missile prototype. He says that such a capability will add “more deterrence weight to our defence force and ensuring that an adversary will have to deal with that risk thousands of kilometres from our shores”, and advocates accelerating this development and acquiring this capability as soon as possible.
Three issues jump out immediately from Jennings points. The first is that hypersonic missiles are potentially a strategically disruptive innovation that will increase instability. Virtually impossible to defend against at present, hypersonic missiles compress dramatically decision-cycle times and increase the prospect of misunderstanding in times of tension. They are complex and expensive items, and many technical issues around the air-breathing versions remain to be resolved. Hypersonic cruise missiles also need to be launched at near supersonic speeds and therefore present complex operational and deployment challenges.
Most contentious among Jennings’ claims are that Australia’s possession of a weapon like hypersonic cruise missiles will act as a deterrent. There are a number of basic questions involved in Australia deterring China. Deterring it from what? If China had an objective that could only be met by an attack on Australia, and it is difficult to conceive what that might be, how would Australia having these weapons dissuade it? Would Australia strike pre-emptively at Chinese forces? Would it strike a targets on the Chinese mainland and open Australia up to retaliation?
Another factor is the issue of quantity, actually a decisive factor. China will possess many more of these types of long-range hypersonic missiles than Australia, and once Australia’s supply was exhausted it will be extremely vulnerable. Moreover, China’s forces are not only vastly superior in numbers, platforms and munitions, they have many more tactical options for attacking Australia, if ever they had the desire. Deterrence between asymmetrical powers is a fantasy of armaments makers.
Unlikely as its seems, the Chinese might “envy the military capability we extract from the US alliance and a force of 90,000 regulars and reserves”. It maybe that Chinese combat aircraft “suffer from critical capability deficiencies in engine and stealth technology, among others, and are no match yet for the F-35 joint strike fighter and the linked systems of the wider ADF”. Currently though they have far more fighters and bombers, and ballistic missiles, and it would not be wise to believe that a nation that just put a rover on the moon and launched an ambitious Mars mission is not going to make continuous and rapid technological advances.
The public airing obtained by these indulgent war fantasies is dangerous. Whipping up anti-China hysteria and broadcasting misleading information about the military realities and relativities between Australia and China can inflame a situation could end badly. In key ways China is an alien country to Australians, and many of the political, social and economic norms it follows are at serious odds to those of Australia. That doesn’t make it an enemy.
It is not unreasonable to factor China’s immense military power into Australia’s strategic policy calculations. It would be irresponsible not to. Moreover, the government also would be derelict if it didn’t provide adequately for a realistic level of defence capability, and one that not only bore in mind the likely missions that the defence force would be called on to undertake, but also had regard for the capability required for success while keeping service personnel as safe as practical. However, when those two things are considered together, it is clear that a deterrence strategy makes no sense for Australia, and avoiding a war is the only sensible objective.
Mike Scrafton was a Deputy Secretary in the Victorian Department of Sustainability and Environment, senior Defence executive, CEO of a state statutory body, and chief of staff and ministerial adviser to the minister for defence.
Comments
28 responses to “ASPI resorts to bullying to deter strategic debate on China”
ASPI receives 1.37mil (72.43%) of its 1.89mil of Overseas Government funding from U.S. State Dept (768k 40.61%), US Dept of Defence (201k 10.64%), US Embassy Canberra (401k 21.18%). (source: https://www.aspi.org.au/about-aspi/funding – then select ASPI Funding 2019~2020)
In a footnote to his article Jennings says that last financial year ASPI received 3% of its funding from the Australian defence industry. Can I ask: How much did it receive from the US defence industry? How much from the French submarine industry? British defence industry etc?
Seeking an answer to my questions I have just looked at the ASPI website. I’m not surprised to see that Jennings has, by omission, totally misrepresented ASPI funding. The website shows that overseas government agencies provide 17 per cent of ASPI’s funding, the private sector 11 per cent and defence industries 3 per cent.
I am happy for ASPI to have a view, no matter how hawkish; and the same goes for Global Times. However the difference between the two is the former is looking for a war whilst the latter is not. How can the world have peace when you have warmongers constantly goading us to battle? And for what?
Jennings and the rest of ASPI are US of A useful idiots concocting threats to justify taxpayer subsidies of the armament manufactures who finance the useful idiots.
I find it rather amazing to be called an idiot by a man who is baying for war.
ASPI is a defence industry lobby group. Their list of sponsors says it all. Jennings fears will he will lose money if he does not push their cause, so he is trying to hype up the fear index and push countries to buy more arms – which, incidentally, will benefit his sponsors.
Jennings is least bothered about businesses going to the wall because of the deteriorating ties with China; he is only interested in getting funds for ASPI – which, by the way, he claims is an independent and non-partisan think-tank.
My take on ASPI is here: https://itwire.com/freelancer-sp-720/tag/ASPI.html
ASPI should be renamed Australian Sino Persecution Institute
Joining the chorus against Peter Jennings’s inappropriate personal criticisms of Beijing’s alleged useful idiots – among whom I am proud to list myself, under Jennings’ definition – I wish to recall for those who may not know that ASPI was initially set up as a seriously independent, Australian, strategic think-tank.. Its early executive directors were people of the calibre of Des Ball and Hugh White. It is only with Jennings’s taking up of the ED position that it became so anti-Russian and anti-Chinese and essentially an American and arms industry mouthpiece. Was this accidental? I don’t think so. Many think-tanks and independent websites start well, but get captured by special interests. ASPI’s privileged access to ABC News and Current Affairs is itself a scandal, as noted by others – and it is indeed hard to know where ASPI ends and ABC begins. .
There are three observations that can be made about ASPI’s many pronouncements: (1) they are always ideological; (2) they often contain errors; (3) they are written to please the revenue-givers
In a recent PBS World News report on the problem with China, statements from ASPI were quoted implying they were representing the Australian Government. It’s not helpful when ASPI is being used as being the official voice of Australian policy.
Most if not all the proliferation of Institutes and “think tanks” are simply lobby groups (and the word Institute should be banned and replaced by Lobby) taking advantage of secret funding (IPA – Gina R) or so-called “Charity-status”) to pressure ministers/governments – in cahoots with NewsCorp – to push our nation into carrying out US strategic aims – to purchase their ugly life-taking weaponry or to support their general paranoia at any nation which might be seen to rival it. Peter Jennings and his whatever-Institute serves foreign interests. That is treason to Australia.
Mr Scrafton,
Thank you.
Socrates said, “Know thyself”. Those of us who disagree with Peter Jennings do not mind being called idiots because we know ourselves. Those who call others names do not know themselves.
As a middle power with a small population, strategically placed in the Asian region, we have an important role to play in getting to know the region really well and continuing to prosper with the region. We could use the goodwill and understanding that we have built up over the years with countries in the region to good use in fostering understanding between the East and the West. We may even be able to act as arbitrators should misunderstandings or conflicts arise between countries in both regions. Instead we squandered the goodwill we built up over the last three decades in exchange for drum beating hubris that earns us nothing but economic mire and the prospect of being drawn into a hot conflict.
For another oxymoron, we have “intelligent fools” in important positions who enjoy a good flow of adrenalin. These and other agencies purport to protect our interest and security. I do not know about others but I feel really insecure when these people call the shots. What we are seeing is the onset of an autoimmune disease.
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
Sincerely,
Teow Loon Ti
It is quite apparent to me that Peter Jennings is the useful idiot in this instance, although whose interests he is serving is not clear. It certainly is not Australia’s. However it’s good that he has come out from the shadows and shown himself. How useful Peter Jennings is, and to whom, needs to be explored. It might turn out that he is not useful at all, merely an idiot. The ASPI, though, indulges in phantasy, and is referred to, if not explicitly named, in the list of 14 grievances recently presented to the Australian government by Beijing.
However it is worth emphasising that many of the voices raised against ASPI are not making themselves heard on behalf of Beijing, but to protect Australia from the reckless behaviour of such unelected agents as Peter Jennings, the Australian, and the cabal of trolls that presently seem to be controlling the narrative of Australian/Chinese relations.
Perhaps Jennings is one of the US collection of useful idiots?
Paranoid, baseless, waffle is easy but dangerous – worse than useless. As a productive use of Mr Jenning’s talents lets have him in charge of diversifying Australia’s exports with a KPI (linked to dismissal on failure) of, say, 25% improvement in 12 months.
Put up or shut up.
Talking about ‘independent’ outfits, the ABC needs to be brought to task here. Stan Grant is a senoir fellow of ASPI and the ABC’ s defence journalist, Andrew Greene, spruiks for BAE in one of ASPI’s videos. Geraldine Doouge and others frequently interview ASPI’s think tankers/spokespersons for the arms manufacturing sponsors providing a media channel for its reports and statements which usually reflect strongly biased foreign influence.
Jennings is a useless idiot. And a dangerous one at that.
I thought Jennings was an ABC journalist with a special brief for upsetting China – its getting hard to tell where the defence dept’s ASPI ends and the ABC begins.
If it wasn’t so serious, it’d be humourous. Time for a remake of Dr. Strangelove.
No need. The original Strangelove is still spot on and with a few name changes, could have been made yesterday. . Heller’s Catch 22 is still as depressingly incisive as ever too.
ASPI is a straight-out propaganda cut-out. They need to be called out
Good article Mike. Peter Jennings and ASPI claim that the latter is an independent think tank. It is no such thing. Under Jennings, ASPI has become an anti-China propaganda outfit, delving into areas that go way beyond ASPIS’s strategic studies remit, but deemed as acceptable as long as its articles cast China in the worst possible light. A truly independent think tank would seek to produce some objective analysis on what drives China, but you’ll never see that while Jennings runs ASPI.
Thank you Mike, a very important article.
The more I read of/listen to Peter Jennings the more I am convinced that he is an extremely dangerous ideologue and propagandist. He and his ilk are in my view a much greater threat to Australia’s national security than China.
The ABCs Andrew Greene quoted Jennings last week, in comments that have been repeated in multiple Australian media websites. The quote was “This is the Russia that was responsible for the shootdown of MH17 over Ukraine, the invasion of Crimea, support to [President Bashar al-] Assad in Syria in murderous ways,”
This is extremely irresponsible from someone with Jennings supposed expertise and knowledge. All three assertions are either false, or taken so far out of context as to be (deliberately) misleading.
As James O’Neill and others have pointed out, it is far from clear that Russia was responsible for MH17. One party that had the means, motive and opportunity to shoot down MH17 has not even been investigated. That would be the Ukraine.
Russia did not invade Crimea, it had an agreement with the (pre-Western backed coup) Government to station 25,000 troops in the Crimea. And the vast majority of Crimean’s, both at the time and currently wanted to join Russia – according to Western polls as well.
Without Russia, ISIS would have controlled all of Syria within a few months. It is only because of the Russian involvement, at the request of the Syrian Government that this did not occur. Surely this is a better outcome than having a head chopping regime in power?
It is a sad state of our media that such obvious falsehoods are allowed to pass without Jennings being held to account.
It’s even sadder that when these falsehoods are called out, as here in Cameron Leckie’s comments, new life is always breathed into them by malign agents within our own community.
It’s even sadder that when these falsehoods are called out, as here in Cameron Leckie’s comments, new life is always breathed into them by malign agents within our own community.
It’s even sadder that when these falsehoods are called out, as here in Cameron Leckie’s comments, new life is always breathed into them by malign agents within our own community.
It’s even sadder that when these falsehoods are called out, as here in Cameron Leckie’s comments, new life is always breathed into them by malign agents within our own community.