Donald Trump loves a deal. With the ageing Virginia class submarines, instead of decommissioning them, what better than to sell them to a subservient nation who not only will pay billions for them, but use them as a compliant extension of the US navy?
Australian Governments have made public statements about the need to defend ourselves against “threats from the North”. The unnamed and unsubstantiated deemed threat, of course, is China.
The statements go on to say that in the defence make-up, submarines will be required: not just conventional submarines, but nuclear submarines which will be capable of “travelling further, faster, and staying on station longer” – which, translated, means that they would have the capacity to travel to, and operate in, waters around China.
The above rhetoric is wrapped up in what are referred to as “defence white papers” or “defence strategies”.
In corporations, each part of a company may have, or develop, a strategy: manufacturing strategy, marketing strategy, IT strategy and so on. But, these do not stand alone. They must be linked to, compliant with, and supportive of the higher level corporate strategy.
Thus, in Australia, our “defence strategy” cannot stand alone. It must be linked to a higher level “national strategy”. So, what is Australia’s national strategy? Errr, well, it doesn’t exist. It is a void.
What might an Australian national strategic plan address?
Based on a set of foundational values (which might include the well-being of people here and now, those yet to be born, the environment etc) such a plan would look at, inter alia, Australia’s place in the world, seeking to optimise not only the well-being of Australians, but, of necessity, the well-being of all in the world at large – because without the latter, there can never be the achievement, or full achievement, of the former. The plan would also include a section on how to avoid state capture and exploitation by foreign military, government and commercial vested interests.
Addressing “Australia’s place in the world” would necessarily involve questions of governance. How might the world be run in order to achieve well-being for all? What would be Australia’s part in that? How might Australia govern itself, and advocate for the most appropriate form of global governance?
Without linking itself to a national strategy, Australia’s defence strategy is flying blind.
By signing up to AUKUS, with close inter-operability with the American military, Australia is not simply acquiring defence equipment. It is supporting the American hegemonic regime.
So, how did America get to be the world hegemon? Was it elected to this role by 50% of more of the world’s nation states? Or by more than four billion people? No. Notwithstanding claims about democracy, America’s rise to the position was not democratic. It was essentially autocratic. It had the power, stemming from its industrial might (and consequent military might); and it simply took the role, with little opposition at the time.
But the world is changing. China and India, in particular, have the potential to not only surpass America in industrial capacity (if they haven’t already done so), but from this, to surpass America in military capability.
We have a situation where America is strongly resisting change. Seemingly, it is prepared to go to war with China, or any other nation it sees as a threat, in order to remain top dog. This threatens the world at large.
If, in signing up to AUKUS, Australia is also signing up to support the hegemonic model of governance, we must ask “is that wise”?
Is it realistic to think that in a rapidly industrialising world, one nation state with just 4% of the world’s population can, on an unelected, unilateral basis, continue to be the world hegemon, and insist on its “rules-based order” when the US itself breaks those rules when it so chooses? Will the US hegemonic model of governance be acceptable to all other nations states, or not so?
Is the US hegemonic model wise when this is essentially a power/war-based model, with risks of escalating out of control at a nuclear level?
Are there alternative models of global governance, such as some form of multi-polar governance, or enhancement of the role, and empowerment of, the UN that would not only be safer for the world, but superior over the long run?
If a person presents at hospital with a lump in the abdomen, the first critical diagnostic question is “is it cancer”? It is not possible to proceed with treatment until this question is resolved. If yes, one course of action will follow. If no, an entirely different course of action is likely to follow.
Before signing up to AUKUS, an Australian Government must first address the critical upstream question: “is the US hegemonic version of global dominance the best version of world governance going forward, or are there better alternatives?”
Until this question is resolved, Australia is not in a position to make any decisions about buying weapons systems from the US – because buying inter-operative weapon systems is, ipso facto, supporting the hegemonic form of governance, which appears, blindly, to have been done.
Failure to address the governance question is the central point of failure of the AUKUS strategy.
World governance is not going to change overnight. But if after wise consideration, and extracting itself from state capture, Australia recognises that, for the greater global good, alternative models of global governance will be required, the first thing the nation can do is to prepare a stepwise exit strategy from the current AUKUS and associated military arrangements and treaties.
This is not to denigrate the US. If there is to be a change of global governance, the US will still be an advanced nation and major player. It simply won’t call all of the shots.
It is up to the Australian Government to think beyond short-term parochialism, or the election cycle, and consider more broadly not only Australia’s place in the world, but how the world itself may be better governed for the greater good over the long term.
The views expressed are solely those of the author and may or may not reflect those of Pearls and Irritations.
University of Melbourne: B.Sc (hons) Chemistry, Biochemistry; PhD Chemistry.Career: Industrial chemical research – 5 years; Management consultant: 20 years, working for private sector and government clients in industries including petrochemical, health, food, manufacturing, defence, legal, professional and human services; with projects relating to manufacturing control, organisation development, systems development, marketing and strategic planning. Corporate executive: 5 years in telecommunications industry with responsibilities including product development, systems development and marketing. Community service: Lifeline counsellor and trainer – 5 years. Peter Kent is the founder of Restart Health Services: a charity for those with severe mental illness. restart.org.au