With its military dominance being hollowed out by China, the agreement over access to Australian bases makes sense to the U.S. But what about Canberra?
U.S. President Barack Obama’s sheen may have worn off somewhat in the United States, but not in Australia. Yet amid the handshaking and backslapping, the photo opportunities and exultations of shared values, interests and history, it’s easy to overlook the fact that Obama’s trip “down under” is driven by cold strategic logic: to sell Australians on accepting a greater burden on behalf of their alliance with the United States.
That process has begun with a major enhancement of military cooperation between the two countries, to be concentrated in Australia’s North West. The arrangement grants the U.S. military greater access to Australian bases, particularly airfields, as well as providing for more extensive training, ship visits and exercises, and the forward deployment of a small detachment of U.S. Marines. It also covers the prepositioning of materiel – fuel, ammunition and spare parts – creating the foundations of a latent staging point for the U.S. military in the Indian Ocean.
For many Australians, an enhanced U.S. presence in Australia is a beguiling prospect. Not only is it seen as a welcome symbol of Washington’s enduring strength and resolve, but also as a more tangible expression of U.S. strategic commitment.
The reality is somewhat different. In fact, Washington’s sudden interest in Australian real estate says less about its resilience than its relative decline. In particular, the quest for new bases reflects the way in which China’s growing power has already begun hollowing out U.S. military dominance, pushing back the boundaries of U.S. primacy.
Indeed, while the United States has spent the past decade losing wars and squandering power, China has been studiously undercutting U.S. advantages across virtually every sphere of policy: economic, diplomatic and strategic. No longer the quiescent child it was when the United States took its eye off the ball, China has grown into a boisterous teenager – and has plenty of growing still to do. With the transformation of Asia’s security order well underway, Washington now finds itself trying to reinvigorate its strategic presence in the face of a putative rival over whom its leverage has been greatly diminished.
Still, why the specific interest in Australia? Three reasons predominate.
The first reason is largely technical: over the past two decades, China has accumulated a formidable array of precision guided strike capabilities, namely long-range ballistic and cruise missiles, which can be launched from sea, air and land. These have been woven into an offensive war-fighting doctrine that places an operational premium on their use early and en-masse – and not just against U.S. ships at sea. Since U.S. bases in Japan, Korea and even Guam are increasingly at risk of being saturated by Chinese missiles at the outset of a conflict, they no longer constitute an indefinitely reliable basis from which the United States can project power.
The countries of Southeast Asia offer no viable alternative. They also lie within range of Chinese missiles. And though their governments clamor for U.S. support whenever China plays rough, they remain unwilling to be prematurely enlisted in U.S. military plans at the risk of becoming a target or arousing Chinese antipathy. Thus, U.S. interest in Australian real estate reflects a simple desire for a more flexible, dispersed posture. U.S. military planners recognize in an Australian staging point the potential to restore the kind of time and space they’re being deprived of in Northeast Asia, as well as options for an operational sanctuary beyond China’s striking range. But what kind of operations do they have in mind?
As U.S. strategists reckon with the scope of Chinese military progress, they are developing an Indo-Pacific war plan for fighting China. In the Pacific, the U.S. Air Force and Navy are fleshing out the AirSea Battle concept, a war-fighting doctrine aimed at countering China’s area-denial strategy head-on. It’s a problematic concept, as I’ve written elsewhere. Nevertheless, by denying China’s capacity for sea-denial, theUnited States intends to preserve its options for sea-control and power projection in the Western Pacific, reinforcing its credibility and role as the region’s dominant player.
The second, more unspoken aspect of the strategy involves exploiting China’s substantial vulnerabilities in the Indian Ocean. Numerous factors combine to make this possible: China’s geographic dislocation, which make it an external power; its dependence on the Indian Ocean for a great proportion of its seaborne trade, including energy imports from the Middle East; and, between the U.S. 5th and 7th fleets, a skewed balance of naval capability that will be hard for China to redress, even by asymmetric means. Taken together, this suggests an approach that would involve crippling China’s economy by blockading or destroying its commercial shipping in war, and, in peacetime, holding it at risk to encourage Beijing’s ongoing acquiescence.
It’s a strategy out of Washington’s World War II playbook. Indeed, the mere presence of a powerful allied naval contingent along China’s sea-lines will require Beijing to divert considerable resources away from its immediate maritime periphery, much as it did with Japan in the 1940s, diluting the singularity of Chinese efforts in the Western Pacific.
This is where Australia comes in: as a central point between the two theatres, and, more importantly, as a base that can be made ready at relatively short notice to support an expanded commerce raiding or blockading campaign against China, most likely in the western reaches of the Indian Ocean.
The third motivation for an expanded U.S. presence in Australia is political. Washington is keenly aware of China’s centrality to Australia’s economic wellbeing. American strategists also recognize the extraordinary geographic advantages that Australia enjoys – a shoulder each in the Pacific and Indian Oceans, its back to Antarctica and shielded in front by a long archipelago. They understand what many Australian fail to see: that Canberra could, with some clear thinking and a substantial yet sustainable increase in spending, strike a more independent strategic posture, defending itself without becoming entangled in the power-politics of Northeast Asia. And they are determined to prevent Australia from becoming the ally that got away.
In this regard, Washington is being clever. It is taking full advantage of Australia’s current strategic dependence, locking in Canberra’s political and military support further, thereby minimizing the potential of any future Australian realignment.
Raoul Heinrichs is Sir Arthur Tange Scholar at the Strategic and Defense Studies Centre, ANU, an editor at the Lowy Institute for International Policy, and Deputy Editor of Pnyx. This is an extended version of an article published by the Lowy Interpreter.
Photo Credit: White House
Reddit
Digg
StumbleUpon
Delicious
Technorati
Yahoo
Google
Plurk
ari
Interesting view, Mr Raoul Heinrichs. An honest and intelligent piece. A somewhat rare commodity these days.
Mr. Sens
Why is everyone assuming here that China or any country that doesn’t follow the US is a threat to the world? So far we’ve only witnessed the US abuse its power and murder millions of people while the rest of the world sat back and enjoyed the show. Now the US is crippled and needs to feed off other countries to survive, like a parasite. In the meantime, Australia should not be getting itself involved with the ‘world bully’, but what can you expect when you have a woman in charge!
Charles
Obviously you’re an idiot, because this has nothing to do with having a woman in charge. As for maintaining our alliance with the US, if we didn’t side with them and instead to develop closer ties with China in matters of Defence, we would be keeping some pretty poor company and become even more isolated in our immediate area than we already are (being a ‘european’ country in south-east asia).
Our role now is to temper US’ sabre rattling and trigger finger, and press the importance on China of following international norms.
dallena
You got that right, our closer alliance with all three world powers and others in our region, will gives us the influence to check U.S military aggressiveness in our region.
Jackson
What a refreshing change from the usual "China is THE (only) threat" angle…
TC1
I hope the Marines are good on navigation – 2,500 marines in the Northern Territory means there’s 1 marine for each 210 sq miles.
The Bradshaw training area is bigger than Holland and Belgium put together.
Brian
Yes, the Bradshaw area and the area around / outside of Darwin in the NT are impressively huge and wild. And yes, the Marines are VERY good at navigation. If I had a nickel for all the days I spent learning how to find my way through the bush (with no GPS) I’d be a rich man. Brian – U.S. Marines
Richards Gaby
If only, our great nation, the USA has more people thinking about how to advance our manufacturing, infrastructure and nation building instead of wasting monies on how to antagonize others and make more enemies!
It is a sad reflection of the time, as they say, when an empire is past its zenith and could no longer sustains itself, thought turns to unproductive and all consuming activities like warfare in an effort to delay the inevitable.
Our empire by the look of things is passed the point of no return.
A key indicator is the number of comments from think tanks on how to make more wars instead of how to promote ones manufacturing and economy.
Our sick economy can no longer support and sustain our military activities that has become an all consuming monster, even at the expense of our pensioners cheques, our health care and infrastructure maintenances.
James
The South Pacific, and its nations, have been a blind spot to Northern Hemisphere countries, including the big players, for a long time. However during World War 2 it was a different matter. Australia, NZ, and the USA cooperated, suffered, but helped defeat Japan by working together in an alliance. In China, Japan was a common enemy and financial assistance as well as other assistance went to both the Nationalists and the Communists in the effort to defeat the Japanese. Chinese people want all of us to remember Nanjing, but what do they know about Australian and NZ nurses forced into prostitution, or soldiers dying in Japanese coal mines as slave labour? After the war, both Australia and New Zealand were the largest donors of aid to the South Pacific countries and this continues. Many older civil servants in countries such as Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, and Sri Lanka were educated free in Australia or NZ. Before NZ left the alliance, the major defense treaty in the area was ANZUS which was a continuation of the alliance ever since the end of WW2. A meeting of all the heads of state of South Pacific nations is held on a regular basis and has done for a long time. Our countries have always had observer status with the alliance of our clsest Asian neighbours:ASEAN. All of this though is unknown it seems to both the commentators here, and in international reactions to Mr Obama’s visit to Australia and also to Hawaii. Its as if the US and China regard this part of the world as terra incognita – a blank state where they can play dominance strategies at will and exploit to their hearts content. All I’m saying is don’t forget the people who already live here, and about our history. The US troops in Darwin are nothing new to us, and when something big happens we tend to cooperate with each other.
13bravo
@jim@Jim1980…….let’s not forget that Arabs/Muslims are on a separate class of there own . Arabs / Muslims have yet to understand this one important lesson , when they instigate war especially against the U.S. thus bombing of the WTC killing thousands of innocent civilians what do they expect , goes to show how brain dead they are . China on the other hand can be reasoned with and come to some reasonable senses .
13Bravo
@ john Chan ……..actually china started to bloom right after President Clinton passed the NAFTA trade act in the early 90′ . Which is when greedy U.S. corporate based companies sent there companies over seas to China for cheap labor thus sky rocketing Chinese economy
jim1980
@DownRedChina, it is true that China does not have a lot of close friend, but it does not have a lot of enemy either.
It is true that many Asians don’t like to be bullied by China, but they still doing trade with China and there is still constant dialog going on. All those things can be repaired in time.
On the other hand, since US killed so many people in Arab and support blindly to Israel, vastly majority of Arab people have deep hatre toward US that almost impossible to repair.
Also, your statement “with us or against us” is so George Bush like. That’s what’s so wrong with American thinking. Sure, South Korean and Japan still on the surface are big fan of US. Beneath the surface, there are a lot of resentment against US base in those two countries. No country wants foreign force in their country.
DownRedChina
@jim1980: “On the other hand, since US killed so many people in Arab and support blindly to Israel, vastly majority of Arab people have deep hatre toward US that almost impossible to repair.”
What would you do if someone killed thousands of innocent people such as 9/11 at WTC? Shake hands and making peace?
Bravo China
Thank you China for standing up to the Big Bad Nasty USA!
There will always be sour grapes, especially when your country is broke and bankrupted and there are no monies left and the soup lines just get longer and longer.
And they just realize that things will never ever be the same again.
USA has only itself to blame for its mess but sour grapes are blooming as a result.
ozivan
@DownRedChina. What would you do if someone killed thousands of innocent people such as 9/11 at WTC? Shake hands and making peace?
You are rightfully entitled to be filled with consternation. I would feel the same too like you if it happened to my country Austalia.
I agree that invading Afghanistan and removing Al-Qaida, Taliban was not wrong. In Iraq, George Bush was too hasty as he was too eager to extract revenge and recover bruised US ego after the 9/11. War historians now comment widely what went wrong was the US attempt to conduct nation-building ( without much success in relation to the financial costs ) after they invaded them.