Dr Ian Buckley, Medical Association for the Prevention of War (MAPW) for Public Discussion 15 August 2000
We all take it for granted that Australia's 'defence' has to be about preserving and enhancing our 'National security', and that that security is about protecting the country's physical integrity, along with the well-being and safety of all Australians. At the same time, the Defence paper refers also to 'national interests' which, we believe, may well undermine these two aims.

I think we all know that wars derive primarily from non-military issues, and that economic justice with greater equity is the key to both domestic and international peace. But on the nature of sane, sustainable, economies, the paper says nothing, and on economic growth, it is simply contradictory. Totally ignoring the fact that regional economic growth increases the gulf between rich and poor, we learn (p.10) that "This growth will underpin regional stability..." - yet it soon goes on to say it will undermine stability because of the "emergence of new strategic powers" - i.e., fast-growing economies with lots of force-projecting weapons!! There is an issue there, but more later.

So its regrettable, that although recognising politico-economic factors as underlying the generation of international tensions and war, the paper fails to advocate appropriate preventive or avoidance measures as the primary response. Nowhere, any mention of arms limitation agreements,for example. Instead, fatalistic speculation on how we may be affected by the looming clash between the established regional powers, the US and Japan (Japan being cast as:"an important force for peace") - and the newly emerging 'strategic powers', especially China. Our very fate is seen to hang on our Ally being able to engineer the correct "balance of power" as if, historically, such 'balance of power' ever protected any state.

It is of course, true that emerging new economic giants, in the presence of old ones, is a real source of tension and potential threat to Australia. However, it does not follow that the emerging giant is itself a threat because, as realised since WWII, economic giants don't need to 'aquire' extra territories in order to gain economic influence. The central concerns of newly-emerging powers, such as China, (just as with the old established ones) are about: access to resources, markets, and investment opportunities. Australian governments have never threatened war with Britian, the US or Japan over these issues; indeed they've encouraged overseas interests in all these areas. So there's no need to feel threatened by China's emerging power.

However, there is a problem: In a world of finite resources, markets and investment outlets, the emergence of new economic competitors is, (both historically, as now) met with hostility by the old. And the sole hazard in this, for Australia, is that it will actually promote itself into another's 'conflicts of interest', especially that between the US and China.

The government obviously takes the view that we need 'the protection' of our great Ally. In fact we need to realise that it is that company that is the hazard. The US has a lot of expectations of us, all of which can get us into very serious trouble. We may, for example, be 'expected' to 'protect' transnational mining companies in countries where they are 'no
longer welcome'. We could be 'expected' to join a 'multilateral force' to protect Taiwan. Having increased supplies of US-derived hi-tech force-projection weaponry would simply make such expectations all the stronger. Being in any way connected with the US 'National Missile Defence' Program would not only make us a potential nuclear target, it would make us an accessory to the destruction of the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, and the launching of a new nuclear arms race. No doubt it is such considerations that have made Malcolm Fraser, Stuart Harris, General John Baker, and others, so critical of our support of NMD. We should support their stand. We got badly hurt in Vietnam, (now recognised even by Americans like Robert McNamara as having been 'an unfortunate mistake'). And, considering today's fire-power, with all manner of 'weapons of mass destruction', a 'modern' war far off-shore is something we must avoid.

No, we should instead, trust to our own political, diplomatic and, if all else fails, military judgement and skills, to protect our own security, to bolster the region's security as best we can, and to head off any involvement in US plans to 'protect its interests'. And our military skills should concentrate on home defence, setting up Jindalee for proper surveillance, patrolling home waters for illegal fishing (and other incursions), on having adequate forces and approriate equipment to guard the continent, - and for appropriate limited off-shore operations to help out in humanitarian causes, such as we're involved in E.Timor.

Ian Buckley,
ACT Coordinator,
Medical Association for Prevention of War
02 6295 9543