Australia’s defence strategic review paints an alarming picture of the “radically different” security outlook in the Indo-Pacific, including the risk of “major conflict in the region that directly threatens our national interest”.
But it is important to be very clear about what Monday’s document does and doesn’t say about the threats Australia faces.
First, the review by the former defence chief Angus Houston and the former Labor defence minister Stephen Smith does not say Australia is at any significant risk of direct invasion. But it seeks to argue that this frame is too narrow to get a true picture of the regional outlook.
Critics of the Australian government’s approach – including the former Labor prime minister Paul Keating – have sought to play down concerns about China’s rapid military buildup, saying it reflects the relative shift in power from the US and that Australia’s direct interests are not threatened.
“All great battles are fought on land. They’re fought as invasions,” Keating said in his memorable outing at the National Press Club last month. “What would be the point of China wanting to occupy Sydney and Melbourne, militarily, and could they ever do it?
“Could they ever bring the numbers here? It would be an armada of troop ships to do it. So you don’t need a briefing from the dopey security agencies we have in Canberra to tell you that.”
But here is how Houston and Smith describe the risks to Australia. “While there is at present only a remote possibility of any power contemplating an invasion of our continent, the threat of the use of military force or coercion against Australia does not require invasion,” they say in their report compiled by the government.
“More countries are able to project combat power across greater ranges, including against our trade and supply routes, which are vital for Australia’s economic prosperity.
“Cyber warfare is not bound by geography. The rise of the ‘missile age’ in modern warfare, crystallised by the proliferation of long-range precision strike weapons, has radically reduced Australia’s geographic benefits, the comfort of distance and our qualitative regional capability edge.”
The review says “any adversary” could attempt to coerce Australia through cyber-attacks, incursions in Australia’s north-west shelf or parts of its exclusive economic zone or through disruptions to sea lines of communication.
For years Chinese officials have been urging Australia to make a clear choice on whether it sees China’s rise as an opportunity for Australia or a security threat. The defence strategic review does not categorise it neatly into one of those binaries.
It attempts, perhaps awkwardly, to reconcile the benefits of China’s economic development with concern about a military buildup “occurring without transparency or reassurance to the Indo-Pacific region of China’s strategic intent”.
“China’s military build-up is now the largest and most ambitious of any country since the end of the second world war. This has occurred alongside significant economic development, benefiting many countries in the Indo-Pacific, including Australia,” the report says.
While the report doesn’t categorise China as a direct military threat to Australia, it does say that Beijing’s assertion of sovereignty in the contested South China Sea “threatens the global rules-based order in the Indo-Pacific in a way that adversely impacts Australia’s national interests”. It labels intense competition between China and the US as “the defining feature of our region and our time” and warns of “the increased risk of miscalculation or misjudgment”.
In the government’s formal response to the review, Richard Marles insists the government continues to view a “stable” relationship with China as being in the interests of both countries and the broader region and that they will seek to manage their differences “wisely”.
In all likelihood, the Chinese government will criticise the language used in the report (Kevin Rudd’s defence white paper of 2009 triggered denunciations from Beijing for warning that “the pace, scope and structure of China’s military modernisation have the potential to give its neighbours cause for concern”).
But the truth is that Australia’s defence settings – including the pursuit of nuclear-powered submarines as part of Aukus – were already factored in to Beijing’s calculations when it reopened the door to Canberra last year.
So what does all this mean for the Australia Defence Force’s overarching mission?
The government has set the ADF a five-point mission that extends well beyond defending the continent and Australia’s northern approaches. In addition to these elements, the ADF will be asked to protect Australia’s economic connections, “contribute with our partners to the collective security of the Indo-Pacific” and “contribute with our partners to the maintenance of the global rules-based order”.
In short, the ADF will seek to project military power further from Australia’s shores, including through the acquisition of nuclear-powered submarines and longer range missiles.
The strategic review also takes a look at the role of Australia’s top security ally, the US, which is “no longer the unipolar leader of the Indo-Pacific”.
The review certainly doesn’t suggest walking away from the alliance, but argues Australia “must be more self-reliant”. It also calls for investing in partnerships with countries across the region, including south-east Asia and the Pacific.
Australian officials have not forgotten the Donald Trump presidency, characterised by an “America First” approach that was openly dismissive or hostile to some of the US’s alliance partners. It seems unlikely Trump will be the last to give voice to an isolationist view in the decades ahead.
But the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, was very brief when asked on Monday for his assessment of the reliability of the US as an ally in the decades ahead.
“The US remains an important ally. It’s a relationship between nations, it’s a relationship between peoples and it’s based upon our common values,” he said.
It is all part of a picture which, according to Albanese, reflects Australia’s “most challenging strategic circumstances since the second world war”.
Daniel Hurst is Guardian Australia’s foreign affairs and defence correspondent
