The revision is at FURTHER COMMENT below.
As
the political reputation of Australia's Prime Minister, currently Tony Abbott, plummets,
some of his more outlandish foreign policy ideas are being seen for what they
are. This article doesn’t raise the bright ideas of rushing Australian troops to Ukraine, presumably to hold back Russian tanks, or to rush Australian troops to the
Middle East, where those troops waited for an Iraqi invitation for two months, but the policy
of buying into an alliance with Japan.
News.com.au reported on July 9, 2014
that: “AUSTRALIA and Japan have become partners in a “special relationship”
that will see both countries join with the US in a powerful military alliance
aimed at curbing China’s influence in the region. During an extraordinary day
in the long Australia-Japan relationship, yesterday in Canberra both Prime
Minister Tony Abbott and his Japanese counterpart Shinzo Abe pledged to create
a partnership for “peace, prosperity and the rule of law”. Fresh from reversing
almost 70 years of pacifism embedded in his nation’s post-World War 2
constitution, Mr Abe placed Australia alongside the US at the forefront of
Japan’s future defence strategy.”
Alliance
maintenance through weapon system purchases has long been a factor in
Australia’s relationship with the US. However, as the US has no conventional
submarines to sell, there is a joint US-Japanese scheme to sell Japanese submarines to Australia. The purchase
price for Australia to secure this alliance with Japan is now around $25Billion
(with the recent depreciation of the Australian dollar compared to the US dollar). This is
specifically for 12 Made in Japan submarines. Abbott’s budgetary ideas have
skimped on health, education and welfare but money is no object when paying for
a military alliance from Abbott’s friend, the like-minded conservative Japanese
Prime Minister Abe.
[Note this Submarine Matters article, of February 4, 2015, appears to have triggered a subsequent article of February 7 in The Australian http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/defence/japan-fears-25bn-submarine-deal-at-risk-in-tony-abbott-crisis/story-e6frg8yo-1227211135322 :-]
By
having Japan build our submarines Abbott can also run down Australia’s ship and
submarine-building industry, which he sees as a hotbed of Labor, leftwing,
union interests anyway.
So what’s in it for Japan? Well the
money helps. Japan also frets about what it sees as rising threats from China,
North Korea and increasingly Russia. However Japan is mainly thinking about the
potential economic benefits of contested islands in the South China and East
China Seas.
Few Australians know or care about
several disputes in the
East China Sea involving China, Taiwan, Japan and others. Possibly the most dangerous Japan
versus China dispute is over a small island chain - which is known as the
Senkaku Islands in Japan, the Diaoyu Islands in China and the
Diaoyutai Islands in Taiwan. The importance of the
Senkakus are that great unmentionable factor - oil. Oil draws military forces –
be they Australian forces in the Middle East or future Australian forces in
Northeast Asia.
The
US, for its part, is worried about the cost of keeping the world’s oceans open
for trade, including oil. Although the US, in the next 12 months, will be
spending many extra $Billions to maintain the Asia-Pacific “pivot” against
China the US
increasingly wants Japan to spend more on defence. Japan’s current defence
spending is only about 1% of its GDP. The US also
wants Japan to secure military alliances – that is with the few countries
interested – not South Korea or most Southeast Asian countries - after Japan’s
horrific conduct in World War Two.
The
US and Japan are quite explicit in seeing a submarine sale as Australia-Japan
strategic alliance cement. A US Admiral has condescended to interpret what an
Australian Defence Minister really wanted. The Japan Times of January 18, 2015 reports: "Vice Adm. Robert Thomas, commander of
the U.S. Navy’s 7th Fleet, reportedly said Oct. 24 [2014] in Tokyo that
then-Australian Defense Minister David Johnston was very interested in Japan’s
Soryu-class subs. “I talked to him about it four years ago and I said: ‘You
want to find the finest diesel-electric submarine made on the planet — it’s
made at Kobe works in Japan,’…”
Also
in that Japan Times article retired
Japanese submarine admiral Masao Kobayashi said."The U.S., which has close
but separate security pacts with Japan and Australia, probably wants Australia
to buy Japanese submarines because it would greatly strengthen their strategic
military ties.”
When
anyone bothers to ask ordinary Australians whether Australia should be drawn
into a conflict by an additional senior ally (Japan) the response appears encouragingly
negative. ABC News (online), January
6, 2015, reported the results of
a Survey of over 1,000 Australians, which indicated “Australians would
overwhelmingly reject siding with close ally Japan against top-trade partner
China over a dispute in the East China Sea and prefer to remain neutral.” In
the article Australia's former Foreign Minister Bob
Carr said “…as far as the public was concerned, Australia was not obliged under
the Australia-New Zealand-United States (ANZUS) treaty to make a
commitment…".
Before one writes off
ACRI
as a support system for Chinese interests and for Bob Carr it must be said that
ACRI was officially launched on May 16, 2014 by Foreign
Minister Julie Bishop. Given the Coalition’s declining fortunes Bob may be a
“former Foreign Minister” for a very short time. He may again be Foreign
Minister after the next Federal Election.
If
Abbott has his way Australia will be junior ally not only of the US but of Japan
with either of those two drawing Australia into their wars. It must be asked “If
or when Abbott stands down as Prime Minister would a Coalition Government still
pursue an alliance with Japan?”
If
Labor wins in the next election would Bill Shorten (who agrees with Abbott’s
Middle East policies) pursue an alliance with Japan?
Is
a survey a genuine gauge of what Australians’ want? How else can we, the public,
influence basic foreign and defence policy changes - including multi $Billion
defence alliances with “friends” likely to draw Australia into wars?
FURTHER COMMENT
US Admiral
Thomas (mentioned above) might be right that the Soryu might be the
closest approximation of what the Australian Government thinks it wants in a submarine. I disagree and think a modified HDW Dolphin 2 or 214, enlarged DCNS Scorpene or Saab-Kockums A26 part or mostly built in Australia, would be more reasonable on military, technical, cost, Australian industrial and political grounds. Regarding Admiral Thomas's public advice to Australia - in the Australian system of values serving military men should not get involved in what are key issues between other countries (in this case Australia and Japan). If the current US Defence Secretary (still Chuck Hagel?) wants to offer advice, then that is his legitimate multi-lateral right and responsibility.
The main
problem with the Soryu, apart from "Build in Japan only", is that selection of that submarine brings grave strategic, political and economic risks for Australia.
That risk centers on being drawn into Japan's battles
involving Australia's main trading partner (China). Such Japanese battles may
not even relate to Japan's national survival but to sometimes slender Japanese
claims to undersea oil resources.
Japan
appears immature. Japan is unwilling to introduce peaceful precedent solutions such as those that occured in Northwestern Europe six decades ago. The Western European solution of sharing the oil and profits for "North Sea
Oil" is what mature, peaceful countries should be doing in Northeast Asia.
Admittedly politics encouraged Australia from the 1960s to choose then
operate the British built Oberon submarines. But Britain by then was not
expecting Australia to get involved in Britain's battles. Britain like the US
was a long term friend and mentor of Australia - Japan isn't.
It is a political and economic necessity that some or
most of a conventional submarine build take place in Australia. Australia has the capacity to build conventional submarines but not nuclear submarines.
These are all things
for embattled Prime Minister Tony Abbott to work through - in his relations with Coalition Backbenchers and some Coalition Frontbenchers from Australia's submarine states of Victoria, NSW, Western
Australia and South Australia.
BACKGROUND
Note that two senior Australian defence commentators are saying the same thing as me - see:
http://www.asiapacificdefencereporter.com/articles/574/The-consequences-of-capricious-decision-making
Pete
