Opinion: Australia’s refusal to deploy a warship to support the multinational effort to secure global maritime trade corridors has rightfully raised a few eyebrows. Concerningly, it reinforces serious questions about the Australian Defence Force’s capacity to actively defend our interests in the Indo-Pacific.
I feel like a bit of a broken record, constantly reminding people that our world has rapidly changed and it definitely hasn’t been for the better.
Just in the last quarter of this year, we have seen the rapid deterioration of the global security paradigm and the position of the United States as the world’s pre-eminent superpower responsible for maintaining global prosperity and stability.
Nowhere is this clearer than in the ongoing collapse of global maritime security in the Middle East, which, despite the presence of overwhelming military might from the US and a coalition of partners ranging from the United Kingdom, France and Japan to the small island nation of Seychelles, continues to decline.
Noticeably absent from the global coalition is America’s “loyal deputy”, Australia, with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese reportedly denying a request from the US to provide a warship, instead highlighting Australia’s primary focus was on our immediate region.
Now, many will say rightfully so, and I do agree, except this government has proudly declared that Australia’s “strategic doctrine” moving forward would be based on a concept of “impactful projection” in the Indo-Pacific, as we are repeatedly reminded by the Deputy Prime Minister and Defence Minister Richard Marles, who said earlier in the year:
“I think, increasingly, we’re going to need to think about our defence force in terms of being able to provide the country with impactful projection, impactful projection, meaning an ability to hold an adversary at risk, much further from our shores, across kind of the full spectrum of proportionate response. Now, that is actually a different mindset to what we’ve probably had before.”
With that in mind, why then have we declined the US request to provide a warship to support the multinational effort to secure critical sea lines of communication through the Middle East, and what does it say about our capacity to enforce “impactful projection”?
To my eyes, it reveals a startling lack of “true” defence capability at a time when the world is becoming more dangerous, not less.
Something Greg Sheridan highlights in The Australian, where he states: “Not for decades have we been so radically unprepared militarily, and incapable, as we are now.”
“There is one overriding reason we can’t send a ship. None of the 10 operational surface fleet vessels we allegedly have available (seven Anzac frigates currently operational and three air warfare destroyers) has any counter-drone defence capabilities ...
“The other reason we can’t send a ship is we don’t have enough crew. One of our notional eight Anzacs is more or less permanently mothballed. The ADF has been losing personnel at more than 10 per cent a year and radically underperforming in recruitment. We couldn’t sustain even a one-ship deployment in the Red Sea indefinitely.”
Yet for the Australian public, this reality is all a bit “eh”.
Don’t believe me? I invite you to raise it with your family and friends over the Christmas and New Year period and report back in the comments section.
Ask your family and friends, do they have home and contents insurance – because that is what our nation’s defence force is for.
Ask your family and friends, have they made use of the internet, mobile banking or travelled overseas – because that is what our nation’s defence force is for.
Ask your family and friends, have they purchased a new car, used prescription medication or even used fertiliser in their garden – because that is what our nation’s defence force is for.
Ask your family and friends, would they miss their Sunday drives, cheap consumer goods, luxury cars and steady access to life-saving medication – because if they say yes, that is what our nation’s defence force is for.
With that in mind, I have a challenge for all of us in the new year: It is to remind people, without being alarmist or “reactionary”, that our modern way of life in this “lucky country” depends now more than ever on having a robust, lethal and deployable military.
Get involved with the discussion and let us know your thoughts on Australia’s future role and position in the Indo-Pacific region and what you would like to see from Australia’s political leaders in terms of partisan and bipartisan agenda setting in the comments section below, or get in touch at Stephen.kuper@momentummedia.com.au or at editor@defenceconnect.com.au.
Posts
The article misses the elephant in the room. 'Australia' isn't a single entity. It is bipolar. As it swings between left and right governments, its engagement with the world swings like a pendulum between supporting Western Civilization and supporting an imaginary socialist isolation. Albanese's left wing Labor Party government is the reason why a warship is not being sent. The problem is left wing politicians - Albanese refused the American request - not the Australian Navy. The article should therefore be attacking Albanese and not the RAN, which stands ready to answer the call to protect Australia's essential Sea Lanes of Communication. The problem isn't the navy - the problem is the Prime Minister.
ReplyDelete