Defence White Paper: Australia joins Asia's arms race with spending on weaponry and military forces

[jhungary]

Australia will embark on a decade-long surge in weaponry and military forces to defend its land, sea, skies and space from Asia's rapidly growing military forces.

The 2016 Defence White Paper maps a course towards a total of $195 billion in defence capability or equipment by 2020-21, together with a larger military force of 62,400 personnel, the largest in a quarter of a century.

Joining an Asian-region mini arms race, the White Paper promises 12 submarines to be built at a cost of more than $50 billion between 2018-2057.

However, maintenance costs will push that $50 billion budget much higher.

Navy will scoop a quarter of all new spending on capability, with nine new anti-submarine warfare frigates and 12 offshore patrol vessels.

The RAAF will build up two fleets of drones while also bringing its eventual fleet of 75 Joint Strike Fighters online.

The Army will claim 18 per cent of all extra spending on equipment, buying armed drones, new protected vehicles to transport troops, helicopters for special forces and a long-range rocket system.

Underscoring a sense of urgency to the renewal of Australia's defence power, the Government is aiming to build spending up to 2 per cent of GDP by 2020/21 — earlier than previously promised — representing an overall increase of $29.9 billion.

Defence officials have told the ABC the White Paper reflects Australia's "growing discomfort" with China's military activity.

Climate change and terrorism listed as threats

Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the Government was committed to the "significant increase in spending" due to regional challenges as well as the threat from climate change and terrorism, among other issues.

The factoring in of climate change was not planned under the Abbott Government.

"In the next two decades, half the world's submarines and at least half the world's advanced combat aircraft will be operating in the Indo-Pacific region, in our region, and this complicates the outlook for our security and strategic planning," Mr Turnbull said.

"We would be concerned if the competition for influence and the growth in military capability were to lead to instability and threaten Australia's interests, whether in the South China Sea, the Korean peninsula or further afield.We have a strong, vital, vested interest in the maintenance of peace, stability and respect for the rule of law."

The language of the White Paper points to a realisation that Australia needs to increase the "potency and agility" of its forces in the face of rising wealth and power in Asia, coupled with the strategic tension already arising between China and the United States.

"Territorial disputes … have created uncertainty and tension in our region," the White Paper notes.

"Some matters that previous defence white papers have described as long-term issues, such as the impact of modernisation in our region, now fall to this White Paper to respond to."

Australia continues to throw its military lot in with the United States, assessed to "remain the pre-eminent global power over the next two decades".

The White Paper aims to deepen Australia's alliance with America, including the relocation of a US spy telescope known as an "optical space surveillance telescope" to Exmouth in Western Australia.

On the path to building defence funding up to 2 per cent of GDP, the Government will also "de-couple" its spending on the military from the general health of the economy, so that even if growth slows, defence will still get its 2 per cent share.

US Ambassador to Australia John Berry described the White Paper as a "well-considered, comprehensive approach to addressing evolving security challenges of the coming decades".

"As allies, we welcome the Government's sustained investment in defence capabilities and readiness and its support for rules-based international order," he said.

Defence White Paper: Australia joins Asia's arms race with spending on weaponry and military forces to reach $195b

 

[Viet]

welcome to the party

 

[qwerrty]

Defence officials have told the ABC the White Paper reflects Australia's "growing discomfort" with China's military activity.

the scs has nothing to do with them. just look at the map. them little guy is trying too hard lol

 

[Aepsilons]

Tho i believe australia has the right to modernize her submarine fleet, this should be done in context to oceania's security, and not be used to interfere in an already heavily securitized dialogue between china and some claimant nations in the scs. Perhaps focus on more economic-based approaches.

 

[Pandora]

Tho i believe australia has the right to modernize her submarine fleet, this should be done in context to oceania's security, and not be used to interfere in an already heavily securitized dialogue between china and some claimant nations in the scs. Perhaps focus on more economic-based approaches.

It is such a shame that Australia is the only Nation which can follow a non interference policy in the world. Australia has no border disputes and enough resources to dominate world economy yet Idiot politicians have to stick their nose where it doesn't belong. Australia is becoming a lapdog of US with every passing year.

History will remember that these stupid political fuckkers preferred weapons when they could have given excellent medical care to Australian citizens. It is such a shame.

 

[Aepsilons]

It is such a shame that Australia is the only Nation which can follow a non interference policy in the world. Australia has no border disputes and enough resources to dominate world economy yet Idiot politicians have to stick their nose where it doesn't belong. Australia is becoming a lapdog of US with every passing year.

History will remember that these stupid political fuckkers preferred weapons when they could have given excellent medical care to Australian citizens. It is such a shame.

That China is Australia's largest trade partner is naught to be ignored as well. Australia would better keep to its own domestic issues and focus on peace security initiatives say in Afghanistan where it has exerted itself too eagerly. I suppose a trade-based approach in foreign policy is more beneficial than in entangling itself where it is not concerned.

I have confidence in Sydney's ability to rise above the fray.

 

[Pandora]

That China is Australia's largest trade partner is naught to be ignored as well. Australia would better keep to its own domestic issues and focus on peace security initiatives say in Afghanistan where it has exerted itself too eagerly. I suppose a trade-based approach in foreign policy is more beneficial than in entangling itself where it is not concerned.

I have confidence in Sydney's ability to rise above the fray.

The problem here is that even though US Australia are miles apart but still many politicians here are American touts. On one hand Australia has dumped all its economy inside china and on the other hand they are buying weapons to confront china in future. China has in no way threatened Australia and yet Australians are wetting their pants over concerns dumped on them by Americans. They destroyed local Medicare for poor people just to buy more weapons.

 

[Nike]

Lol u know nothing about them

It is such a shame that Australia is the only Nation which can follow a non interference policy in the world. Australia has no border disputes and enough resources to dominate world economy yet Idiot politicians have to stick their nose where it doesn't belong. Australia is becoming a lapdog of US with every passing year.

History will remember that these stupid political fuckkers preferred weapons when they could have given excellent medical care to Australian citizens. It is such a shame.

Once again u are ignorant

The problem here is that even though US Australia are miles apart but still many politicians here are American touts. On one hand Australia has dumped all its economy inside china and on the other hand they are buying weapons to confront china in future. China has in no way threatened Australia and yet Australians are wetting their pants over concerns dumped on them by Americans. They destroyed local Medicare for poor people just to buy more weapons.

 

[retaxis]

Australia = large land size with 22mil people
Malaysia/Indonesia = 250mil people (islamic people) just a few kims from the border

I wonder why Australia puts money into military...........Its pretty obvious

 

[Pandora]

Lol u know nothing about them



Once again u are ignorant

I suppose an Indonesian knows more about Australia than an Australian himself. Dont dump your hate for china on others.

 

[xunzi]

We welcome all, including our Australia partner, to flesh their muscle in according with the international obligation to protect free trade..

 

[Aepsilons]

Australia = large land size with 22mil people
Malaysia/Indonesia = 250mil people (islamic people) just a few kims from the border

I wonder why Australia puts money into military...........Its pretty obvious

Sharp!

I suppose an Indonesian knows more about Australia than an Australian himself. Dont dump your hate for china on others.

It is evidently clear who and what are perceived threat(s) to Australia.

--------------------

Social defence and the Indonesian military threat

Australian military planners do not see Indonesia as a major military threat. They have assessed that the Indonesian military does not possess a sufficient navy or logistic support capability to seriously threaten Australian military defences.[1]

Even so, many Australians see Indonesia as a threat. They fear an invasion by the Indonesian military, or perhaps by the Indonesian people as refugees. This fear is compounded of xenophobia, racism, fear of lowered living standards, and awareness of Indonesian military activities.

There are some quite valid reasons for being concerned about Indonesian military activities. While not an immediate military threat to Australia, the Indonesian military regime helps oppress the Indonesian people and, in conjunction with other similar regimes in South East Asia, endangers the stability of the region. Furthermore, the Indonesian military regime is being supported by the Australian government, which thus contributes to repression and regional militarisation.

The problem of Indonesian militarism poses a serious dilemma for the Australian peace movement and supporters of disarmament. Is there any alternative to military defence against a potential invader? What should opponents of war do about aggressive military governments? How can regional militarism be restrained?

Although the Indonesian military does not pose a threat to Australia currently, there is the possibility of an Indonesian military attack elsewhere, for example on Papua New Guinea. Such an attack would greatly increase paranoia among the Australian public, would help mobilise support for Australian military spending and intervention, and would put the peace movement on the spot to suggest a nonmilitary approach.

This article is an attempt to address some of these problems. First there is a summary of the Indonesian military threat, and then of the responses made by Australian governments. Some possible alternative Australian government policy stances are presented. Finally, a nonmilitary approach to Indonesian militarism is outlined, based on social defence: nonviolent community resistance to aggression. To illustrate how this approach might operate, a hypothetical example is presented: social defence in PNG against an Indonesian military attack, and social attack by Australians to support antimilitary groups and initiatives within Indonesia.

Indonesian militarism
The military-dominated regime which currently rules Indonesia came to power in 1965, and since then has been ruthless in repressing opposition. Only a facade of democracy exists. Military control is used to prop up the existing systems of privilege and power, such as the exploitation of the peasantry by landowners and of factory workers by capitalists. Active opponents of the regime face imprisonment or death. In the countryside there is a general fear: fear of speaking to strangers, of becoming conspicuous, of political involvement.

The Indonesian rulers are strongly anticommunist, and hence obtain support from corporations and capitalist governments. Indonesian economic development is based on Western models: investments in modern technologies in the cities, and destruction of traditional cultures.

The Indonesian military mainly serves to maintain internal control, and to run the government. But the military has also fostered an aggressive nationalism, which in practice means state domination and repression of minority or regional groups which try to be independent. Provincial rebellions are ruthlessly repressed, and both West Irian and East Timor have been annexed by a combination of political and military aggression. The aggressive nationalism fostered by the regime serves to justify the dominance of the military internally, and also diverts attention from internal problems.

Australian government responses
Half a million to a million people were slaughtered in Indonesia in 1965-1966 when the present regime came to power, one of the most horrendous violations of human rights since World War Two. This massacre was virtually unremarked in Australia and the West generally. It is an example of what Noam Chomsky and Edward Herman call 'constructive terror' in that certain vested interests in the West were served by the bloodbath.[2]

Since Indonesian military forces invaded East Timor in 1975, Australian governments - both Labor and Liberal - have avoided taking any action. Rather than vociferously opposing the killing of over one hundred thousand East Timorese, the Australian government has provided de facto or de jure recognition of the Indonesian military takeover. Indeed, an important precondition for the invasion in the first place was the indication by the United States government and to a lesser degree by the Australian government that they would turn a blind eye to Indonesian intervention in East Timor.

The Australian government has provided considerable economic and military aid to the Indonesian rulers, helping to sustain their rule and helping militarise Indonesian society. The basic theme in Australian government policy seems to have been to support the Indonesian government, no matter how brutal its actions, rather than Indonesian people's resistance to repressive policies.

Not only is this type of policy morally bankrupt in terms of defending human rights, but it aggravates rather than reduces the potential Indonesian military threat within the region. By catering to Indonesian militarism and expansionism, the Australian government solidifies Indonesian military rule and contributes to a regional arms race. There is even the possibility of a regional nuclear arms race, made possible by Western export of nuclear research and nuclear power facilities to the Indonesian government

The Australian government to the rescue?
If an Australian government wished to act decisively to restrain Indonesian military repression and expansion, and instead to support those groups in Indonesia favouring democracy and equality, there are many possible avenues for action. Here are some of the conventional possibilities.

• Make strong statements opposing Indonesian government violations of humans rights and opposing Indonesian militarism.
• End all military aid, supplies and training provided to the Indonesian military.
• Provide aid which helps build up self-reliance in Indonesian communities.
• Encourage exchanges and interchanges between community groups in Australia and Indonesia.
• Welcome refugees from Indonesian government repression.
• Provide amnesty and haven for deserting Indonesian soldiers.

There are many other possible actions that an Australian government might take. The guiding principle should be to oppose Indonesian government and military repression and to support all grassroots forces for democracy.

Political practice is a different matter. The potential for regional military conflict depends a lot on positions taken by the major powers in the region, both in terms of their economic role - direct investment, foreign aid, tourist expenditures, exploitation of workers - and their political role and attitude. For Indonesia and PNG, this means mainly the United States and Australia, and to a lesser extent other powers such as Japan. Fretilin in East Timor was not a direct threat to capitalist interests, but was not supported since as an example of a successful liberation movement it could have jeopardised longer term capitalist exploitation. These considerations help to explain the role played by the United States and Australian governments concerning the Indonesian invasion of East Timor.

More generally, governments put a much higher priority on maintaining their political and economic power than on opposing repression or militarism. The case of East Timor is only the most recent example near to Australia in which states have put their self-interest above stopping human rights abuses such as genocide.

For these reasons, it is unlikely that an Australian government would actually undertake effective steps against Indonesian militarism. For example, although several of the above lines of action and similar ones were part of the Australian Labor Party platform adopted in 1982, once in government in 1983, actual ALP practice has pandered to rather than opposed Indonesian militarism. This has been graphically revealed in the 'Strategic Basis' document leaked to the National Times, which suggests among other things that the Australian government should encourage the PNG government to repress West Irian rebels.[3]

While pushing for Australian government initiatives against Indonesian militarism is important, it is not a dependable path. Since reliance cannot be put on governments, it is important to consider what individuals and community groups can do to oppose repression both locally and transnationally.

A possible threat to Papua New Guinea
As an illustration of possible options, I will consider an Indonesian military attack on Papua New Guinea. Currently there is strong Australian military support for and collaboration with PNG military forces, and this is one reason why many informed observers feel an Indonesian military threat to PNG is out of the question.

But because of the strong Australian and United States government support for pro-capitalist political and military elites in Indonesia, it is possible that a change could occur in Australian military support for PNG, for example if the PNG government undertook a more independent foreign policy, or threatened the profitability of foreign investments. Some observers consider that an Indonesian military threat to PNG is quite a serious possibility, and point to the Indonesian government transmigration programme of settling Javanese in West Irian, the build-up of Indonesian troops in West Irian, border violations and repression of West Irian dissidents. Certainly within PNG there seems to be considerable concern both about an Indonesian attack and about the reliability of Australian government support in the event of an attack.[4]

Another reason to consider an Indonesian attack against PNG is to examine whether there are any alternatives other than dependence on the Australian military or on defence by professional military forces. Support from an external power cannot always be relied upon; on the other hand the problem with strong national military forces is that they are often sources of internal repression, as indeed they are in Indonesia. Nevertheless if there are no other options, then the arguments of peace movements are unlikely to carry much weight in the Third World.

How then could such an attack be deterred or opposed without depending on the Australian government or on defence by professional military forces? Whatever the likelihood of an Indonesian military threat to PNG, this example is used here only as an illustration of a more general problem: how to oppose military threats against communities which lack strong military resources and lack big-power support.

Reference:
Social defence and the Indonesian military threat

 

[Blue Marlin]

Australia = large land size with 22mil people
Malaysia/Indonesia = 250mil people (islamic people) just a few kims from the border

I wonder why Australia puts money into military...........Its pretty obvious

thats why we put you there lad, instead of locking up your ancestors we sent you lot to the other side of the world as punishment. the extra 29.9 billion will be used to hunt kangaroos's and koala's. i think its for the best you increase spending even more. heck give some of the kangaroo's that's left over a gun's too to level the playing field.

 

[Aepsilons]

Australia = large land size with 22mil people
Malaysia/Indonesia = 250mil people (islamic people) just a few kims from the border

I wonder why Australia puts money into military...........Its pretty obvious

Absolutely, in fact, Australia's position is clearly centered on strategic ambiguity: support opposition to Jakarta's central administration.

------

please refer:

---------


How to Eliminate the Military Threat from Indonesia

How to Eliminate the Military Threat from Indonesia, by Brian Martin

 

[Nike]

I suppose an Indonesian knows more about Australia than an Australian himself. Dont dump your hate for china on others.

Ur comment above talking like u known australia better than us, who had become their close neighbor since beginning?