In responding to my post (19 October) about the Morrison government’s plan to spend at least $90 billion on large submarines, Jon Stanford’s post (21 October ) argues that we should do what the Commander of the US Submarine Force wants with our submarines.
This is a very bad idea. The unnamed Commander says his submarine force operates in an offensive role “up threat” to hold China’s strategic assets at risk, starting with its homeland and its ballistic missile submarines. Stanford supports Australia’s submarines working together with their American counterparts in the congested waters of the South China Sea, the area designated as ‘’up threat”.
Australia’s latest Defence Strategic Update does not describe China as a military threat. As a comment on Stanford’s post points out, the Update says the prospect of a high intensity military conflict is remote. But the US commander’s “offensive role” in the South China Sea certainly contemplates such a conflict.
The “up threat” description is reminiscent of Australia’s previous doctrine of “forward defence”. Australian policy makers saw the British navy at Singapore as providing “forward defence”. It didn’t. Participation in the Vietnam war was supposed deliver forward defence against what the Prime Minister Bob Menzies described in 1965 as the “downward thrust” of communism from China and its “puppet” North Vietnam. Without any help from China, the Communist Party of Vietnam won the war but didn’t turn out to be the enemy after all.
In 1969, the Coalition government ditched the doctrine of forward defence. The Defence Minister Allen Fairhall told Parliament in August 1969 that the prospective communist victory posed no threat to the nation, allowing him to use the “breathing space” to cut the defence budget by 5 percent, even though Australia still had several thousand troops in Vietnam.
The forward defence doctrine is now back in an extremely dangerous form in which Australian submarines work together with America’s in close proximity to the Chinese mainland. They are also close to China’s submarines and surface ships – so close that an accidental clash could easily escalate into a major war, including a nuclear war.
Stanford wants Australia get its own nuclear submarines to better help the US in the South China Sea. He even implies that Australia’s expensive nuclear subs should remain “up threat” if the Americans left. This would leave Australia’s submarines highly vulnerable. It would also be seriously provocative and guarantee that China treated Australia as an enemy.
Australian submarines could have a useful role closer to home by increasing the cost for any country wanting to attack Australia by sea. I suggested in my post getting some relatively low cost, high-quality, German submarines similar to those being acquired by Singapore.
But submarines have their limitations, which is why it’s not a good idea to waste staggering sums on them. Submarines didn’t have a crucial role a key role in any of the wars Australia has been involved in since 1950, starting with the horrors of the Korean war through to those in Iraq and Afghanistan. A recent study by Brown University called “The cost of wars” estimates that those involving America since the September 11, 2001 have displaced 37 million people from their homes, caused terrible suffering and created huge refugee problems in the Middle East and Europe.
But John Howard saw participation in the Afghani and Iraqi wars as simply the price of gaining American help if Australia came under attack. Never mind that the Anzus treaty makes crystal clear it provides no security guarantee – unlike the NATO treaty. Scott Morrison should follow Allen Fairhall’s 1969 example and understand that China need not be a threat any more than Vietnam was.
Brian Toohey is author of Secret: The Making of Australia’s Security State.
Comments
12 responses to “Australian submarines operating in the South China Sea is a very provocative and very bad idea.”
SAD TO SAY Our leadership has been brainwashed or badly influenced by foreign powers like USA and UK in the guise of our so-called values? Do they really understand our universal values, freedom, democracy, mutual respect, egalitarianism, equality, liberty and fraternity? Peace and living harmoniously is the first and foremost for all humanity. “Confrontations and wars” is the most unhuman way of solving our differences. We are not living in jungle anymore? History is our lesion and teacher. Where is Australia’s independence? Where is our independent values?
The good ol’USA is and has been the aggressor here (China) and as well as many other parts of the world. Australians are generally, so very disappointed with Scomo and his gang of associates. There is not a skilled diplomat amongst them. Our trade has and will further dimish. Our armed forces have, through our politicians, blindly followed the USA as a willing partner in real crime, as it turns out. The USA = Death + Destruction, it’s in their DNA. They have been at war with someone except for a handful of years, since they existed as a country. Please read a new book published this month “Poisoning of the Pacific” by Jon Mitchell. One has to constantly remind ones self, that we are ALL brothers and sisters , and our only mother is planet earth. Hold this notion as you negotiate your way.
Brian. Wholeheartedly agree. But you say: “Without any help from China, the Communist Party of Vietnam won the war…”. No help, none whatsoever? This is not my understanding of the history of the conflict.
It’s hard to interpret the recent actions of our government as anything other than deliberately provocative towards China, and so determined that the cancellation of vital export markets in response seems to make no difference. The recent announcement we will join the Quad manoeuvres in the Indian Ocean next month could be the last straw, at least in trying to restore our relationship with China.
I hope I didn’t imply that we should do what the US tells us to in regard to the operations of RAN submarines. Rather, I was seeking to discuss how submarines could best be employed to deter a great power from attacking Australia, particularly in the event the US goes home. According to generally accepted naval doctrine, as suggested by the US force commander, submarines are most effectively employed in an offensive role. Basing slow submarines with a limited endurance in northern Australia (also difficult because of tides and shallows) as a last line of defence would not constitute an effective deterrent. It also presumes a focus on deterring an invasion of Australia, which is one of the least likely possible scenarios.
Sounds like more reasons why the submarines should never have been ordered in the first place.
Jon, wouldn’t you agree that Australia is nigh indefensible against a serious attack by “a great power” (supposedly China as it really is the only great power in our area). A couple of submarines will hardly make any difference. I still think that our greater risk stems from the Americans. One only has to read John Bolton’s recent book to understand how aggressive America really is. In his (and many high ranking Americans) view America is always right and everyone else by definition always wrong. That applies equally to friend and foe. And that is why Australia runs a great risk of being pulled into a war it cannot possibly win.
I would have thought (possibly naively) that that is a place we would not want to find ourselves in.
SAD TO SAY Our leadership has been brainwashed or badly influenced by foreign powers like USA and UK in the guise of our so-called values? Do they really understand our universal values, freedom, democracy, mutual respect, egalitarianism, equality, liberty and fraternity? Peace and living harmoniously is the first and foremost for all humanity. Confrontations and wars is the most unhuman way of solving our differences. History is our lesion and teachers.
Jon,
You certainly did imply that we should do what the Americans tell us to do.
And even worse you have swallowed the Trump line that China is a threat to us and the rest of the world. Read a little wider and you will find that a host of countries from Africa to South America and South East Asia do not see China in this way. Around the world China-related development projects are seen as positives – not as some sort of devious militaristic move. They include rail projects in Egypt and the Trans-Sahara highway which potentially will benefit six African countries.
With your talk of “countering the potential ambitions of a great power like China” you imply that China is some sort of military threat. But where is the evidence of this? Claiming back Hong Kong? Or stating that Taiwan is part of China? Or border skirmishes with India?
Hong Kong is unquestionably part of China. It was seized from China as a settlement in the Opium Wars. Both Chiang Kai-Shek’s republicans and Mao’s communists regarded Taiwan as part of China. The skirmishes on the India/China border have occurred because there is no agreed border.
Compare these matters with US action. It is the US that has invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, bombed Syria and regularly interfered in the affairs of countries around the world. Elections in Bolivia have just over-turned the US orchestrated coup of last year. Will the US allow the new democratically elected president to run his policies?
If there is a useful role for Australia as a friend of the US, it is for us to persuade the new US president and his administration — whoever they might be — to tone down the US’s belligerent activities. That would mean NOT operating off the coast of China in the “offensive ‘up threat’ role” you endorse.
You didn’t, you did exactly what you said you were seeking to do. How the hell anyone could read your piece in any other way is bloody amazing.
American nor Australian politicians just don’t get it. The more China is provoked the more they spend on defence.
Even if China is the enemy, our submarines in SCS will be wasting fuel and resoources as China’s building roads and rail link thru BRI recipient countries would ensure the West route to Middle East and EU are cleared for shipment of goods & giving up Malacca Straits and Eastern access to US in the Pacific. A new canal across the Isthmus of Kra would kill off Malaysia and Singapore ports. If you manage to block the West route, then you are asking for a nuclear war!