| |
Australia: A sheriff with a
strategy
By Stephen Blank
President George W Bush's visit to Australia
brought him to a country that has been a long-standing
and proven ally of the United States. Indeed, he
recently called Australia America's "sheriff" in the
region. And in the global "war on terrorism" it has been
a strategic and operational trailblazer.
Even
before its citizens were attacked in Bali last October,
Australia had instituted a robust homeland defense
system that integrated police, domestic and foreign
intelligence agencies and the military in enhanced
readiness to counter terrorist threats. Soon after the
Bali bombing, Australia revised its 2000 military
doctrine to emphasize power-projection forces and
preventive operations in distant theaters to forestall
threats that could degenerate into terrorism, or worse.
Thus Australian doctrine and strategy fully comport with
the United States' readiness to undertake preventive
operations against terrorism or weapons of mass
destruction (WMD).
Not surprisingly, Australia
has also sent forces to participate in the wars in
Afghanistan and in Iraq. But Australia has moved further
than simply deploying forces for such missions by
creating joint force structures to effectuate this new
strategy of power projection and preventive operations,
including preventive stability operations.
A
study of the Royal Australian Navy and naval theater
missile defense states openly that the Australian
Approach to Warfare (AAW) refers directly to WMD, noting
that these weapons are a more immediate concern to
Australia than the prospect of invasion or military
intimidation. The doctrine goes on to argue that, in
practice, the Australian Defense Forces' (ADFs') role
goes far beyond the fundamental requirement to deter or
defeat an armed attack on Australia itself. This posture
demands an ability to operate with the defense forces of
other nations and away from Australia's shores.
AAW reiterates a preference for attacking
hostile forces as far away as possible. The Future
Warfighting Concept (FWC) also lists WMD and ballistic
missiles as issues that the ADF will need to contend
with. The FWC goes on to say that Australia's interests
are now "truly global" and that events far from its
neighborhood can have a direct impact upon its citizens.
Dealing with such issues will require the ADF to be able
to "project power" within Australia and within the
region. Canberra is also promoting this power-projection
capability to distant theaters as a joint force that
employs all the services. Recent suggestions of
assigning an Australian armored brigade for overseas
service entails a sizable complement of other forces for
purposes of force protection and highlights the move
toward making expeditionary forces a priority.
Furthermore, Australia has just implemented this
policy by sending preventive deployments to the Solomon
Islands, 2,000 kilometers northwest of its shores.
Australia acted to forestall these islands' drift into
unrest and potential violence, which could make them a
haven for terrorism. As part of the deployment,
Australia is providing land, sealift, airlift and
amphibious forces. Clearly this operation and its
guiding policy represent an experiment in crisis
prevention to forestall terrorism, insurgency and other
forms of civil violence. Thus, they signify a departure
from traditional Australian policy and are an
interesting precedent from which others can learn.
Canberra's decision suggests that finally some
governments have understood that distant unrest
threatens international or at least regional security
and must be confronted expeditiously. Threats
originating in hitherto distant theaters can no longer
be ignored.
This example of genuine crisis
prevention, undertaken by regionally powerful states who
can assemble political-military support for their
actions, may become a precedent that is usable beyond
this case. And it certainly shows that new capabilities
are generating a redefinition of strategic space wherein
forces can operate and undertake new missions with new
force packages.
Australia's intervention in the
Solomons has received support from all 16 Pacific Island
Forum states, New Zealand and even France. Clearly these
countries share Australia's fears about trends in the
Solomons and have duly accepted a doctrine that they
might otherwise have tended to reject. Canberra is also
acting without seeking United Nations support. Indeed,
Foreign Minister Alexander Downer has derided
multilateralism when it becomes a "synonym for an
ineffective and unfocused policy involving
internationalism of the lowest common denominator".
While this may not be the same kind of
intervention Washington envisaged in its new strategy,
it clearly represents Canberra's sense that its broader
strategic environment is precarious, therefore,
preventive action is needed sooner rather than later.
Canberra's actions not only show Washington's influence
upon the Australian government's thinking, they also
suggest that despite attacks against US strategy,
Canberra believes Washington correctly grasped the
significance of major and disruptive changes in the
structure of international security.
Australia's
decision also represents other critical precedents. For
years there have been calls for the UN to take up
effective crisis management and even more crisis
prevention, however, far too often the UN has been an
excuse for inaction in some of the worst humanitarian
disasters of our time. Canberra's justification of
genuine crisis prevention, undertaken by regionally
powerful states that can assemble political-military
support for their actions, may become a precedent that
is usable beyond this case in other troubled areas.
This precedent is unlikely to be a perfect
solution in all cases of state failure, civic violence
etc. But absent effective multilateralism, and given the
UN's inability to function as a peacemaker without great
power support from all members of the Security Council,
Australia's precedent could mark a step forward in
international security, not to mention the "war against
terrorism".
It would be hard to discern a
greater contribution by an ally to the United States.
Canberra not only shares Washington's concepts
concerning international security, but is also prepared
to act vigorously to realize those concepts in practice.
While Australia's new strategy is clearly inspired by
the United States' example, it also can become a
precedent for other states facing a similar security
threat. And it is to be hoped that it can bring about
genuine crisis prevention in a host of areas lest more
such crises emerge.
While this is not a prefect
solution to the problems of failing states, it may be
the most effective one that we currently can devise. And
in that respect it could actually mark a step forward in
the construction of a stable international order.
Stephen Blank is an analyst of
international security affairs residing in Harrisburg,
Pennsylvania.
(Copyright 2003 Asia Times
Online Co, Ltd. All rights reserved. Please contact content@atimes.com for
information on our sales and syndication policies.)
|
| |
|
|
 |
|
