The big issue

What would regional war involving China be like? This is the key question for Australia’s national security in the medium to longer term. By Jim Molan.

It is traditional in intelligence circles when assessing foreign countries to look at both intent and capability. We looked at Indonesia in those terms for decades, but I don’t believe that we have looked at our great ally – the US – in those terms in enough detail. Who cares how big and aggressive China gets in our region if the US was powerful enough and willing enough to lead its allies to deter extreme Chinese actions, military or otherwise? But since the end of the Cold War in 1991, effective US military power, admitted by their own National Defence Strategy, has reduced by 30 to 50% with worldwide responsibilities. China’s military power, by comparison, has increased exponentially under an authoritarian regime. The CCP says exactly what it intends to do, at some stage it will consider it has the military power to do it, and it has a very narrow focus on its island chains so it can apply most of its hard power to the one geographical area, whereas the US has worldwide responsibilities.

China is a reactionary nation which does not accept the status quo that has made it rich and powerful. It has no respect for international law and conventions. China has one main aim, and that is to be dominant in all respects, first in the Indo Pacific region and then perhaps in the world, and a high degree of consensus exists on this even on Capital Hill. Being dominant is strongly related to the continuance in power of the CCP. This is a zero-sum game for China. It must reduce US power and influence to increase its own.

But all of that is background to the Australian question: What would regional war involving China be like? I claim this to be the key question for Australian national security in the medium to longer term because if there was an understanding of the nature of such a war, and a risk analysis conducted and preparations commenced, then anything less could be handled, and Australia would be more secure. How can priorities be set in national security if a comprehensive scan of all likely threats, including the most dangerous as well as the more likely ones, is not considered? But there is no indication that this has occurred, even at the highest classified level, or we would be able to see the unclassified results.

As a member of the Morrison Government, the biggest challenge I face in advocating the above position is that the Abbott, Turnbull and especially the Morrison governments have improved our national security position considerably, not just defence but national security in its broadest sense. That must be repeatedly acknowledged. By 2013, after the Labor years, our national security and the effectiveness of the ADF was disastrous. Now the ADF is in the best position it has been in for 50 years with money allocated to weapons, defence industry, intelligence, security and legislation. With the government deservedly talking up its role in achieving that, most Australians think the extra $270bn allocated over 10 years buys defence perfection. Only by speaking about war can we put this expenditure, its priority and its timeframe into perspective.

The current threat environment Australia faces is clearly more complex than that faced in living memory. The Morrison Government understands this and is doing more than any previous government to prepare for the uncertain future. Alternatively, the Australian Labor Party is unprepared and unorganised when it comes to our National Security. To highlight this, the ALP’s official websites policy page, entitled ‘What we stand for’, makes no reference to National Security - the closest they come is talking about Defence Industry development. It is clear that the Morrison Government is the most equipped to lead us into this period of strategic uncertainty but there is work to be done.

The most popular scenario for the start of a regional war seems to be what is commonly called the Taiwan scenario. The reason for this is that the CCP has been saying for decades that Taiwan is part of China and will be returned even if force must be used. There are other scenarios that could be used to examine regional war but Taiwan demonstrates most principles and illustrates operational techniques. If Australia was prepared as a nation and as a defence force for a regional war that begins as a realistic Taiwan scenario as the basis for its planning and strategy, then it would be prepared for most other scenarios. Or if we elected to not prepare and to take risk, at least the magnitude of that risk would be understood by government.

Most Australians who consider the issue think that US power is infinite and regardless of what we do, the US will sustain our prosperity and our security. This has led to the highest degree of complacency on the issue of national security. As I point out above, since the Cold War ended in 1991, that is not true in a military sense. It is critical to climb down from the emotive language of the “Sound of the guns”, the Defence of Australia, our great and powerful friend and the Defence Department’s ‘Shape Deter Respond’, and look at how things might really occur, looking at Australia’s ability to react in our own interest.

Despite a very realistic speech given by the Prime Minister in July 2020 as a strategic update with increased funding for the ADF, there is still no coordinated national security strategy that is producing a resilient and self-reliant Australia in a reasonable time, with an ADF which is lethal, sustainable and large enough for Australia’s developing strategic environment. It is politically understandable that in Australia, governments will have to lead on national security issues. But governments will also react, in a three-year political cycle, to public complacency on this issue when faced with a range of more immediate demands. The most dangerous threat to Australia is the rise of an aggressive China and the lessening of US power across the world. This is an existential threat to our liberal democratic Australia. Much of that threat is seen as military, but the solution in Australia’s case concerns the resilience and self-reliance of the whole nation, our institutions as well as our military.

As a nation, we can no longer afford to believe that the US will always be there for us if Australia faces a serious security threat. The relationship between our nation and the US is strong and important but it is our own responsibility to ensure Australia is resilient enough to overcome regional instability and potentially war.

Jim Molan is a Liberal senator for NSW and a former chief of operations for coalition forces in Iraq.