CPA Policy:
Defence and Security — the Real Alternative

Dr Hannah Middleton

For Australians to live in peace and security, the Australian 
Government must break with the US alliance, develop friendly and 
mutually beneficial relations with all countries, and adopt an 
independent and non-aligned defence policy which will be 
efficient, affordable and genuinely serve the defence needs of 
our country and the need for peace and stability in our 
region.

Above all, Australia must break with the policies of the United 
States which are so appallingly dangerous and damaging for the 
American and Australian people and for people in every nation on 
earth.

The central US goal is control of the planet, power to install 
governments subservient to its demands, power to privatise and 
deregulate the economies of every nation in the world, power to 
inflict on peoples everywhere "free market" corporate capitalism, 
power to dominate and plunder.

To achieve this, the Bush administration has policies for "pre-
emptive" strikes, to send weapons into space for the first time 
in human history and to develop new, "usable" nuclear weapons. 

The Howard Government has signed up Australia as a front line 
collaborator with US global war plans, providing specialist 
military forces and a secure base for US electronic and satellite 
spying activities, and adopting policies of "pre-emptive" 
strikes, interference in "failed" states and inter-operability, 
the process of turning Australia's forces into a de facto arm of 
the US military.

Security

Security is often defined as just military security — the 
capacity to identify and meet threats to a nation by the use or 
the threat of the use of force.

However, security cannot be guaranteed by ever greater numbers of 
more sophisticated weapons. Real security comes with jobs, steady 
food supplies, homes, clean water, warmth, education and health 
care, democracy and human rights.

Australia's security can be enhanced by attention to social, 
political and humanitarian issues which affect the people of this 
country as well as in neighbouring states.

The over-emphasis in casting the military as Australia's 
guarantee of "security" has meant fewer resources available for 
constructive work such as preventive diplomacy and aid.

Overseas aid is a cost effective means of contributing to 
security by assisting sustainable development among people in our 
region and helping them to overcome conflict — inducing social 
and economic problems. However, our contribution is minute 
compared to military spending.

Terrorism

Terrorism is a violent response to severe grievances.

The "war on terror" is a myth for terrorism is not a society or 
community, not a country or a government and there is no place or 
army which can reasonably be attacked to overcome terrorism.

The use of force in the "war against terror" increases the threat 
of terrorism. Suicide attacks in 2003 reached the highest level 
in modern times. Iraq suffered its first since the 13th Century.

Fidel Castro said: "No one can deny that terrorism is today a 
dangerous and ethically indefensible phenomenon, which should be 
eradicated regardless of its deep origins, the economic and 
political factors that brought it to life and those responsible 
for it.

"But who have profited? The extreme right, the most backward and 
right-wing forces, those in favour of crushing the growing world 
rebellion and sweeping away everything progressive that is still 
left on the planet."

The best ways to address terrorism is to deal with the many 
legitimate grievances that are its root causes.

Police work to track down specific law-breakers and enhanced 
security measures are also needed. But this does not mean the 
anti-terrorism laws we face in Australia today.

Legislation passed by the Australian Parliament constitutes a 
major attack on democratic rights in our country and must be 
repealed.

The threat of "terrorism" is being exploited as a pretext to 
legislate for the loss of rights and liberties and to criminalise 
opposition — militant unionism, direct action by social 
movements and so forth. Terrorism replaces communism or 
subversion as the justification for shutting down political 
dissent.

Aggression ornon-offensive defence

The Federal Government is spending billions on the biggest 
military build-up for decades and making us a cog in the United 
States war machine.

This equipment is not for Australia's defence. It is designed to 
fight high-intensity conflicts overseas under the direction of 
the US.

The real alternative to this is non-offensive or defensive 
defence which takes advantage of cheaper but efficient 
alternatives, contributing to national security without 
diminishing military capability.

A key commitment in this new approach is for Australia not to 
possess more military force than is necessary to defend its 
territory against likely military threats. Australia's military 
capability and doctrines will be altered so that our country 
cannot threaten the territory of other states.

Non-offensive defence strengthens peace and security by ruling 
out pre-emptive attacks and "preventive" wars. If a state can 
strengthen its defensive capabilities in times of crisis without 
posing an increased threat to other states, the vicious circle of 
competitive military escalation can be avoided.

Non-offensive defence is intended to facilitate arms control and 
disarmament by eliminating one element in competitive arms build-
ups — mutual fear and insecurity.

Collective security may be a safeguard for many countries. 
However, collective security can require forces with offensive 
capabilities. This dilemma can be resolved by ensuring that only 
multinational task forces are capable of offensives while the 
national components are not.

Non-offensive defence should be based on affordable low to medium 
technology as compared with the current high tech and expensive 
equipment purchased by the Australian Government.

This could in turn generate a "peace dividend" which would 
provide major financial resources to satisfy the needs of the 
people for jobs, housing, education, health care, welfare 
services, environmental protection, transport and communications, 
culture and leisure.

It can also fund social, economic, educational and sustainable 
environmental projects that can help build peace, confidence and 
security in the Asia-Pacific region.

Costs

Resources committed to the military mean less money for 
developing strong social cohesion and stability within the nation 
through employment programs and meeting the health, education and 
housing needs of Australians and our neighbours.

Military expenditure reduces public and private investment, 
diverts funds and personnel from civilian research and 
development, increases the current account deficit, and tends to 
distort and hold back economic development.

Studies from Germany have shown that one billion marks 
transferred from the military budget and spent on alternative 
civilian programs would create at least 800 and possibly up to 
6500 more jobs than would be lost in the military sector.

The World Bank has reported that "evidence increasingly points to 
high military spending as contributing to fiscal and debt crises, 
complicating stabilisation and adjustment, and negatively 
affecting economic growth and development".

Australian Government is currently spending over $55 million 
every day on the military. Many shortages in our public health 
and public education systems could be overcome with just two 
weeks' military spending — about $700 million.

Some practical steps forward

We look for a new world security order. This new approach 
includes such policies as:

* An end to the hosting of US military-bases on Australian soil 
and termination of the ANZUS Treaty. No involvement in Star Wars 
(the US anti-missile system). Adoption by the Australian 
Government of an independent foreign policy.

* A change in Australia's defence policy and military capability 
to one of defence of our own territory, ruling out aggression 
against the territory of other states. A focus on dual-use 
equipment (for example, aircraft which can be used for water 
bombing bushfires as well as for coastal surveillance and 
interception).

* A substantial cut in the military budget. Conversion of 
military-related industries to socially useful and 
environmentally sustainable production with the consequent 
creation of additional employment.

* Uphold the nuclear weapons free status of Australia. Work for 
nuclear free zones throughout Asia and the Pacific.

* Forbid foreign warships and military aircraft to call at 
Australian ports and airfields or transit through Australian 
territorial space.

* Work to develop transparency and confidence building in the 
region and to restrict a regional arms race.

Conclusion

The government's goal must be to minimise military expenditure as 
far as responsible defence strategy allows. Subservience to the 
US makes Australia poorer, not safer.

The drive towards war is being paid for by the peoples of the 
world. The price of failure in the struggle for peace will be not 
just global dictatorship, human misery, and environmental 
destruction but also the possibility of human and planetary 
annihilation.

A just and peaceful world is possible. The Australian people can 
and must play their part in imposing it on US imperialism.