Whence the threat to peace.
Government's Defence White Paper

by Peter Symon

At the beginning of December the Australian Government issued a long-
awaited Defence 2000 White Paper. It is a comprehensive and detailed 
document and is forthright in its policy declarations. It is not just a 
paper document, the Government has already decided to allocate tens of 
millions of new dollars towards military expenditure to cover the next ten 
years. Never before has any Australian Government earmarked such prodigious 
expenditure over such a long period. At present $12.2 billion is spent 
annually on the military. This will increase to $16 billion annually by the 
end of the decade — a total additional expenditure of $23.5 billion over 
the period.

The White Paper is extremely candid so long as one is prepared to see 
beyond the bland wording when it comes to sensitive issues such as those 
dealing with some of Australia's neighbours in the Asia-Pacific region.

Its candour probably derives from the feeling in government circles that 
with the dismemberment of the Soviet Union, the capitalist and imperialist 
countries are riding high and have no need to cover their real intentions 
or restrain their assessments and objectives.

The massive increase in expenditure will not see any great increase in the 
size of the Australian Defence Forces (ADF). The present number is listed 
at 51,500 and this is to be increased by only 2,500 men and women, to 
54,000 by the year 2010.

It is about turning the ADF into a highly trained high-tech force equipped 
with the latest American technology. The plan is for Australian forces to 
both exercise and operate in close collaboration with American armed 
forces. It is called "interoperability".

The White Paper claims that the United States today "has a preponderance of 
military capability and strategic influence that is unique in modern 
history. That preponderance supports a generally stable global strategic 
environment.

"The primacy of the US is built on the strength of its economy, the quality 
of its technology, the willingness of US governments and voters to accept 
the costs and burdens of global power and the acknowledgement by most 
countries that US primacy serves their interests."

Whether other nations willingly accept US primacy of power is not argued or 
questioned although the White Paper does admit that in "coming years the US 
global role may come under pressure, both from within the US and from other 
countries".

While opting for an ever-closer integration with the United States the 
document talks of self-reliance with one exception — "Australia relies on 
the extended deterrence provided by US nuclear forces to deter the remote 
possibility of any nuclear attack on Australia."

No threat

In assessing the possible danger to Australia, the White Paper draws the 
same conclusion that has been drawn by similar statements for the last long 
period: "A full-scale invasion of Australia ... is the least likely 
military contingency Australia might face. No country has either the intent 
or the ability to undertake such a massive task." So why the massive 
increase in expenditure?

The answer is to be found in the Government's statement of Australia's 
strategic interests and objectives.

We are told that our strategic objective is to foster the security of our 
immediate neighbourhood. "We would be concerned about internal challenges 
to the stability and cohesion of neighbouring countries and concerned about 
any threat of external aggression against them."

Translated into common language this means that the Australian Government 
will be concerned about any serious social and political upheaval that 
threatens the existing capitalist order of our neighbour countries.

Underlying everything that the Liberal/National Party does (and this is 
backed by Labor Governments as well) is the preservation of the existing 
economic and political order. That, of course, is never spelt out in the 
White Paper but it becomes crystal clear in one statement after another in 
the document.

"Our key strategic interest in Southeast Asia is to maintain a resilient 
regional community that can cooperate to prevent the intrusion of 
potentially hostile external powers ..." What are "potentially hostile 
external powers"? Hostile to what?

And again: "We would want to avoid the emergence ... of a security 
environment dominated by any powers" [other than the United States, of 
course], "whose strategic interest might be inimical to Australia's and to 
destabilising competition between the region's major powers."

The White Paper lists the major powers in the Asia-Pacific region as 
Russia, Japan, China, India and the US. "We continue to support the United 
States in the major role it plays in maintaining and strengthening the 
global security order", declares the Government.

Forward defence

Having declared that the possibility of an attack on Australia is really 
nil, the Government's military strategy says that after providing for 
Australia's defence, "Australia needs to be able to control the air and sea 
approaches to our continent" and that "although Australia's strategic 
posture is defensive, we would seek to attack hostile forces as far from 
our shores as possible".

This is the old policy of "Forward Defence" which has been the position of 
Australian Governments for some time.

While talking about other operations such as "evacuations, disaster relief 
and peacekeeping operations", the White Paper also declares that "crises 
causing avoidable human suffering cannot be ignored just because they 
happen within the borders of a sovereign state".

This tendency on the part of the United States and some other imperialist 
countries to cast the sovereignty of nations aside, a sovereignty that is 
inscribed in the Charter of the United Nations, is here used to justify in 
advance the military intervention in any country where events might easily 
be declared as causing "human suffering".

This was seen in the NATO bombing of Yugoslavia, which was executed without 
even the pretence of invoking the machinery of the United Nations Security 
Council and in flagrant disregard of this UN member's sovereignty.

Will NATO and the US also come to the rescue of Israel should the situation 
there get out of control?

China

There is already the threat of intervention in the Taiwan Straits should 
the Government of the People's Republic of China use force to thwart any 
breakaway by separatist forces in Taiwan.

In this respect, on the subject of relations between the US and China, the 
White Paper says, "significant problems remain in the relationship — 
especially concerning the issue of Taiwan. It is possible that US-China 
relations may be a significant source of tension in the region in coming 
years. This could be important to Australia's security."

In what way would the reunification of China and Taiwan be a threat to 
Australia's security?

Both the US and Australian Governments have declared their recognition of 
"One China" and in accepting this, both governments have accepted that 
Taiwan is a part of China. But their declarations have been dishonestly 
made.

The US has continued to arm Taiwan with advanced weapons and clearly, 
behind the scenes, is encouraging the separatist tendencies of some 
Taiwanese politicians.

They hope to find a way to establish Taiwan as a separate nation and if 
Taiwan should, none-the-less, return to the fold of the People's Republic 
of China, this could be an occasion for military intervention and war 
against China.

Why otherwise would this be a matter of "importance to Australia's 
security".

Australia's attitude to Japan is quite different. The White Paper welcomes 
the US-Japan Security Treaty which was recently upgraded.

"This has provided a welcome framework in which Japan has been able to take 
a larger role in regional and global security issues."

The Australian Government specifically ignores the fact that Japan's 
Constitution specifically forbids the use by Japan of military forces 
outside the territory of Japan. But when it is a question of securing the 
interests of world capitalism and imperialism such considerations are of no 
importance.

Korea

While faintly welcoming the recent development in relations between North 
and South Korea and recognising the possibility of "a reduced level of 
military confrontation", the White Paper also sees "new pressures — 
including over the future of US forces in Korea — which would need careful 
management."

By "management", the White Paper has in mind the need to find a way to 
retain US forces in South Korea into the distant future.

While the relations between China and India have been relatively stable 
with an exchange of top level government leaders, the White Paper seeks to 
play up differences claiming that "strategic competition between China and 
India have been amplified by the development of India's nuclear 
capability."

The possibility that China, India and Russia should form some sort of 
closer political relationship obviously gives the US and Australian leaders 
nightmares.

The White Paper declares that changes, "especially in the dynamic Asia-
Pacific region could produce a more unstable and threatening strategic 
situation".

Unstable, yes; threatening to Australia, no.

That is, unless one is thinking of the political influences that spill over 
borders and could give ideas to the Australian working people whose living 
standards and rights are being savaged by the same corporations and IMF and 
World Bank policies as are producing massive unemployment and poverty in 
many countries.

East Timor

The White Paper makes an interesting comment about East Timor. It says that 
"Australia should seek to build a defence relationship with East Timor", 
and that "important security issues ... may not be resolved by the time the 
UN-sponsored transition to independence is completed, probably by the end 
of 2001."

One can suspect that the decision of the Australian Government to take the 
initiative to send troops to East Timor had objectives other than 
humanitarian considerations.

Given the overthrow of Suharto's military dictatorship in Indonesia by 
massive student and worker demonstrations, the Australian Government moved 
rapidly to put itself in a position to intervene in Indonesia with military 
force should that possibility arise.

East Timor was seen as an advance base should the Indonesian democratic 
revolution get out of hand with radical political forces emerging after 
decades of suppression.

So far that has not happened but the Australian Government sees that the 
possibility remains in the future and some sort of "defence" arrangement 
with East Timor could provide the necessary legal framework to use the 
territory of East Timor as an advance base of operations.

It has to be recalled that the Australian and Indonesian Governments signed 
a "security" treaty negotiated secretly by Paul Keating and the former 
Suharto regime.

Article 2 of the agreement states: "The Parties undertake to consult each 
other in the case of adverse challenges to either party or to their common 
security interests and, if appropriate, consider measures which might be 
taken either individually or jointly and in accordance with the processes 
of each Party."

In effect, this provision raised the possibility of Australian forces 
intervening in the internal affairs of Indonesia in the event of political 
developments not acceptable to the capitalist ruling classes of both 
countries.

Although the Indonesian Government advised the Australian Government on 
September 16, 1999, that it had decided to abrogate the agreement with 
effect on that date, the Australian Government has not made an official 
response.

The Department of Foreign Affairs was unable to say whether the Australian 
Government viewed the agreement as having been terminated.

It would appear from the White Paper that the intentions of the treaty 
remain valid in the thinking of the Government.

Globalisation bandwagon

The White Paper jumps on the globalisation bandwagon and claims that 
"Overall, globalisation looks likely to be good for security because it 
strengthens the stake that governments and people have in the smooth 
working of the international system."

The reality is different. Massive struggles have been sweeping many 
countries as a result of globalisation policies being imposed by 
international capital.

The White Paper asks why the document has been put out now. It answers this 
question by saying that the Government concluded that "with the end of the 
Cold War and with dynamic economic growth in Asia, Australia's strategic 
circumstances had become more demanding and the potential demands on our 
armed forces had grown."

This is indeed a strange conclusion if one believes that the alleged end of 
the Cold War and the "death of communism" had brought about a secure and 
comfortable world for private enterprise.

The reality is that the imperialist powers do not believe their own 
propaganda. The struggle between capital and labour rages around the world 
and Australia's defence upgrade is a response to the increased insecurity 
felt by the US, Australian and other Western governments.

When the White Paper talks of "stability" and "security" it has in mind a 
stable and secure environment in which capital can continue to hold sway 
and make even more massive profits.

Australia's military industrial complex

Needless to say the White Paper takes for granted a close relationship 
between Australian industry which will make huge profits from the 
Government's orders for new weapons.

"Improved linkages between industry and the Defence Science and Technology 
Organisations will be a high priority."

Australia has its own "military-industrial complex" which, because the 
continuing flow of contracts for military hardware and technology, has a 
vested interest in maintaining and stirring up conflicts wherever possible. 
If peace should break out, it would be a disaster for profits.

More weapons, less security

Far from the Australian Government's policies and its "strategic" concepts 
leading to a more secure and stable environment, they will have the 
opposite consequence.

Other countries will question the role being carved out by Australia as a 
major base for US interests in the Asia-Pacific region, just as there is 
increased questioning and resistance to the policies of the US around the 
world.

No one will question the need for Australia to have the necessary armed 
forces in the present world to defend its shores.

But the policy of "Forward Defence", the implied intention to interfere in 
the internal affairs of other countries in alliance with the US will 
increase Australia's isolation in a region where the former colonial 
countries are now standing on their own feet and are not willing to accept 
a return of colonialism in any form. But that is what underlies the 
Australian Government's strategic and political projections.

UN principles

A different policy is called for if Australia's interests are really to be 
looked after.

The Australian Government should commit itself to the principles of the UN 
Charter.

These principles are based on development of friendly relations among 
nations; sovereign equality; equal rights and the right to self-
determination of peoples; maintenance of international peace and security 
and the taking of collective measures for the prevention and removal of 
threats to peace; renunciation of the use of force to settle disputes 
between nations; and non-interference in the internal affairs of other 
countries.

The White Paper fails to even mention these principles because the 
imperialist powers do not and have never subscribed to them.

These are principles that should be incorporated in Australia's foreign and 
defence policies but they are totally absent.

Australia, together with the US, is going in one direction while the 
majority of the countries of the world are going in another. This is a 
course for which Australia will pay dearly in the decades ahead.