• Home
  • About RSIS
    • Introduction
    • Building the Foundations
    • Welcome Message
    • Board of Governors
    • Staff Profiles
      • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
      • Dean’s Office
      • Management
      • Distinguished Fellows
      • Faculty and Research
      • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
      • Visiting Fellows
      • Adjunct Fellows
      • Administrative Staff
    • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
    • RSIS Endowment Fund
    • Endowed Professorships
    • Career Opportunities
    • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
    • Research Centres
      • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
      • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
      • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
      • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
      • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
    • Research Programmes
      • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
      • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
    • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
    • [email protected] Newsletter
    • Other Research
      • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
    • Graduate Programmes Office
    • Overview
    • MSc (Asian Studies)
    • MSc (International Political Economy)
    • MSc (International Relations)
    • MSc (Strategic Studies)
    • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
    • PhD Programme
    • Exchange Partners and Programmes
    • How to Apply
    • Financial Assistance
    • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
    • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
    • Alumni
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
    • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
    • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
    • SRP Executive Programme
    • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
    • RSIS Publications
      • Annual Reviews
      • Books
      • Bulletins and Newsletters
      • Commentaries
      • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
      • Commemorative / Event Reports
      • IDSS Paper
      • Interreligious Relations
      • Monographs
      • NTS Insight
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • RSIS Publications for the Year
    • Glossary of Abbreviations
    • External Publications
      • Authored Books
      • Journal Articles
      • Edited Books
      • Chapters in Edited Books
      • Policy Reports
      • Working Papers
      • Op-Eds
      • External Publications for the Year
    • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
    • Great Powers
    • Sustainable Security
    • Other Resource Pages
    • Media Highlights
    • News Releases
    • Speeches
    • Vidcast Channel
    • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
Facebook
Twitter
YouTube
RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsis.sg
Linkedin
instagram instagram rsis.sg
RSS
  • Home
  • About RSIS
      • Introduction
      • Building the Foundations
      • Welcome Message
      • Board of Governors
      • Staff Profiles
        • Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
        • Dean’s Office
        • Management
        • Distinguished Fellows
        • Faculty and Research
        • Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
        • Visiting Fellows
        • Adjunct Fellows
        • Administrative Staff
      • Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
      • RSIS Endowment Fund
      • Endowed Professorships
      • Career Opportunities
      • Getting to RSIS
  • Research
      • Research Centres
        • Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
        • Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
        • Centre of Excellence for National Security (CENS)
        • Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
        • International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      • Research Programmes
        • National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
        • Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      • Future Issues and Technology Cluster
      • [email protected] Newsletter
      • Other Research
        • Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      • Graduate Programmes Office
      • Overview
      • MSc (Asian Studies)
      • MSc (International Political Economy)
      • MSc (International Relations)
      • MSc (Strategic Studies)
      • NTU-Warwick Double Masters Programme
      • PhD Programme
      • Exchange Partners and Programmes
      • How to Apply
      • Financial Assistance
      • Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
      • RSIS Alumni
  • Alumni & Networks
      • Alumni
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
      • Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
      • International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
      • SRP Executive Programme
      • Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
  • Publications
      • RSIS Publications
        • Annual Reviews
        • Books
        • Bulletins and Newsletters
        • Commentaries
        • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
        • Commemorative / Event Reports
        • IDSS Paper
        • Interreligious Relations
        • Monographs
        • NTS Insight
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • RSIS Publications for the Year
      • Glossary of Abbreviations
      • External Publications
        • Authored Books
        • Journal Articles
        • Edited Books
        • Chapters in Edited Books
        • Policy Reports
        • Working Papers
        • Op-Eds
        • External Publications for the Year
      • Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
  • Media
      • Great Powers
      • Sustainable Security
      • Other Resource Pages
      • Media Highlights
      • News Releases
      • Speeches
      • Vidcast Channel
      • Audio/Video Forums
  • Events
  • Giving
  • Contact Us
  • instagram instagram rsis.sg
Connect

Getting to RSIS

Map

Address

Nanyang Technological University
Block S4, Level B3,
50 Nanyang Avenue,
Singapore 639798

View location on Google maps Click here for directions to RSIS

Get in Touch

    Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
    RSISVideoCast RSISVideoCast rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
    instagram instagram rsis.sg
      RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    RSIS Intranet

    S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
    Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University

    Skip to content

     
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO09040 | The Great Australian Defence Debate: Is China a Threat?
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • Commentaries
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • IDSS Paper
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers
    • RSIS Publications for the Year

    CO09040 | The Great Australian Defence Debate: Is China a Threat?
    Sam Bateman

    24 April 2009

    download pdf
    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    In advance of a Defence White Paper expected in the next few weeks, a major debate has been going on in Australia about the security implications of the rise of China.

    THE LOWY Institute for International Policy, a leading strategic think-tank in Australia, released a report recently that says Australia should dramatically increase its defence spending to meet the strategic challenges presented by the rise of China. While the report does not see China as a direct threat to Australia, it views the rise of China as creating uncertainty and a higher risk of regional conflict.

    The report advocates a progressive increase in defence spending from the current level of about 2.0 per cent of gross domestic product to 2.5 per cent. This would allow Australia’s submarine fleet to be enlarged and the current order of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to be increased, as well as an expansion of the Australian Army; in short, a big boost for each of the Australian services.

    Hugh White, the author of the Lowy Institute report, is a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defence and now head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. Earlier this year, he argued in an article in the international strategic journal Survival (vol. 50, No. 6, December 2008 – January 2009. pp. 85 – 104) the reasons why war in Asia “remains thinkable”. These reasons are similar to those in his Lowy report: building a new order in Asia will be extremely challenging; it will require significant concessions from the region’s major powers; but these concessions may not be forthcoming.

    White’s arguments were rebutted in a piece in the same journal by Richard Bitzinger and Barry Desker from Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) on “Why East Asian War is Unlikely”. These authors saw an emerging “Beijing Consensus” built on an Asian model of development. They identified the significance of Asian values in shaping the region’s response to global and regional developments. This was in contrast to the approach of White who used European models from history to support his pessimistic view of Asia’s strategic future.

    The Current Defence Debate

    Hugh White has emerged as a “hawk” in the current great Australian defence debate. His paper comes soon after media reports of a stand-off in Canberra between the Department of Defence and the country’s two main intelligence agencies: the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO). This became so intense that the nation’s intelligence watchdog was called in to investigate whether the Defence Department was putting undue pressure upon the intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support increased defence spending.

    The debate has been about how to interpret and respond to China’s military expansion. Apparently the DIO and ONA assessments were relatively benign about any threat from China. This reflects a more pragmatic view of the implications for regional security of the rise of China as evident in the Bitzinger and Desker article.

    The Defence Department wanted a much tougher assessment. A cynical observation would be that it wanted a credible threat to justify current plans for a major expansion of Australia’s defence capabilities. If that’s the case, then it would be “putting the cart before the horse”. Strategic assessments should drive defence budgets rather than vice versa.

    The Defence Department’s position is strongly supported by Hugh White and other “hawks” in strategic think-tanks in Australia. Some of these are closely associated with defence industry, which would not want any cut-backs, or even delays, in current defence programmes. This is all in the lead up to a new Defence White Paper expected prior to the annual national Budget on 12 May.

    Insular Insecurity

    The view of the “hawks” suggests Australia still seeks security against rather than with the region. It also might show some lack of confidence about Australia’s role in the region, and a failure to appreciate Australia’s own geostrategic environment. Rather than seeing the oceans and seas surrounding Australia as a link to its regional neighbours, much Australian strategic thinking still views them primarily as a moat or barrier to unwanted intrusions from the region.

    This feeling of insular insecurity has been evident again in much of the reaction to the recent increase in the numbers of illegal immigrants trying to reach Australia by sea. It is also evident in the arguments of the “hawks” for high tech defence capabilities to protect Australia and its interests in major conventional war. Unstated assessments of a possible threat from Australia’s large neighbour, Indonesia, may be another factor still evident in parts of the Australian defence community.

    Sending the Wrong Messages

    Many Australian defence statements, such as those from the “hawks”, may have an unintended consequence of promoting insecurity in the region. There are from time to time robust statements from Australian interest groups arguing the need for strike aircraft to reach particular Asian capitals, or for long-range submarines that can reach through Indonesia into the East Asian seas. There has also been talk of Australia becoming a “muscular regional power”, although the reasons for Australia developing that way were rather less than clear.

    These hawkish statements do not go unnoticed in the region. They send mixed signals about Australia’s commitment to regional security. And they can also serve to promote a regional arms race that’s clearly not in Australia’s national interest. Earlier statements about Australia increasing its submarine force may well have led to Indonesia also seeking more submarines.

    Budgetary Problems

    Even if the “hawks” were to prevail in this great defence debate, it’s unlikely that the Australian Government could sustain the necessary real growth in defence spending. The Australian economy is moving into recession, and low growth rates are predicted for the next few years.

    The Rudd government made an election commitment to maintain real growth in defence spending of 3.0 per cent per annum for the next 15 years. This would mean a much higher share of the national “cake” going to Defence. However, it’s now unlikely with all the other pressures on government, including the economic stimulus, health, education and welfare programmes already announced.

    The recession provides a good excuse for government to walk back from many current commitments – something will have to give. And in the final analysis, there are fewer votes in Defence than in other Federal Government programmes.

    Seeking Regional Views?

    Senior officers from ONA visited Singapore in recent weeks as part of a quick trip around Southeast Asia. This may have been a coincidence, but the trip might also have been a last attempt to explore regional strategic thinking before the Defence White paper. Let’s hope for the sake of both Australia and the region, the views they took away were more in line with those of the region itself rather than with those of the hawks back in Australia.

    In resolving the current defence debate, Australia might do more to heed views from the region on the region’s own strategic future. It might also take more notice of the regional reaction to hawkish statements from “down under”.

    About the Author

    Sam Bateman is Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He is a former Australian naval officer who has previously held senior positions in the strategic policy areas of the Department of Defence in Canberra. 

    Categories: Commentaries / Maritime Security / East Asia and Asia Pacific

    Last updated on 09/10/2014

    RSIS Commentary is a platform to provide timely and, where appropriate, policy-relevant commentary and analysis of topical and contemporary issues. The authors’ views are their own and do not represent the official position of the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), NTU. These commentaries may be reproduced with prior permission from RSIS and due credit to the author(s) and RSIS. Please email to Editor RSIS Commentary at [email protected].

    Commentary

    In advance of a Defence White Paper expected in the next few weeks, a major debate has been going on in Australia about the security implications of the rise of China.

    THE LOWY Institute for International Policy, a leading strategic think-tank in Australia, released a report recently that says Australia should dramatically increase its defence spending to meet the strategic challenges presented by the rise of China. While the report does not see China as a direct threat to Australia, it views the rise of China as creating uncertainty and a higher risk of regional conflict.

    The report advocates a progressive increase in defence spending from the current level of about 2.0 per cent of gross domestic product to 2.5 per cent. This would allow Australia’s submarine fleet to be enlarged and the current order of F-35 Joint Strike Fighters to be increased, as well as an expansion of the Australian Army; in short, a big boost for each of the Australian services.

    Hugh White, the author of the Lowy Institute report, is a former Deputy Secretary of the Department of Defence and now head of the Strategic and Defence Studies Centre at the Australian National University. Earlier this year, he argued in an article in the international strategic journal Survival (vol. 50, No. 6, December 2008 – January 2009. pp. 85 – 104) the reasons why war in Asia “remains thinkable”. These reasons are similar to those in his Lowy report: building a new order in Asia will be extremely challenging; it will require significant concessions from the region’s major powers; but these concessions may not be forthcoming.

    White’s arguments were rebutted in a piece in the same journal by Richard Bitzinger and Barry Desker from Singapore’s S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS) on “Why East Asian War is Unlikely”. These authors saw an emerging “Beijing Consensus” built on an Asian model of development. They identified the significance of Asian values in shaping the region’s response to global and regional developments. This was in contrast to the approach of White who used European models from history to support his pessimistic view of Asia’s strategic future.

    The Current Defence Debate

    Hugh White has emerged as a “hawk” in the current great Australian defence debate. His paper comes soon after media reports of a stand-off in Canberra between the Department of Defence and the country’s two main intelligence agencies: the Office of National Assessments (ONA) and the Defence Intelligence Organisation (DIO). This became so intense that the nation’s intelligence watchdog was called in to investigate whether the Defence Department was putting undue pressure upon the intelligence agencies to produce assessments that would support increased defence spending.

    The debate has been about how to interpret and respond to China’s military expansion. Apparently the DIO and ONA assessments were relatively benign about any threat from China. This reflects a more pragmatic view of the implications for regional security of the rise of China as evident in the Bitzinger and Desker article.

    The Defence Department wanted a much tougher assessment. A cynical observation would be that it wanted a credible threat to justify current plans for a major expansion of Australia’s defence capabilities. If that’s the case, then it would be “putting the cart before the horse”. Strategic assessments should drive defence budgets rather than vice versa.

    The Defence Department’s position is strongly supported by Hugh White and other “hawks” in strategic think-tanks in Australia. Some of these are closely associated with defence industry, which would not want any cut-backs, or even delays, in current defence programmes. This is all in the lead up to a new Defence White Paper expected prior to the annual national Budget on 12 May.

    Insular Insecurity

    The view of the “hawks” suggests Australia still seeks security against rather than with the region. It also might show some lack of confidence about Australia’s role in the region, and a failure to appreciate Australia’s own geostrategic environment. Rather than seeing the oceans and seas surrounding Australia as a link to its regional neighbours, much Australian strategic thinking still views them primarily as a moat or barrier to unwanted intrusions from the region.

    This feeling of insular insecurity has been evident again in much of the reaction to the recent increase in the numbers of illegal immigrants trying to reach Australia by sea. It is also evident in the arguments of the “hawks” for high tech defence capabilities to protect Australia and its interests in major conventional war. Unstated assessments of a possible threat from Australia’s large neighbour, Indonesia, may be another factor still evident in parts of the Australian defence community.

    Sending the Wrong Messages

    Many Australian defence statements, such as those from the “hawks”, may have an unintended consequence of promoting insecurity in the region. There are from time to time robust statements from Australian interest groups arguing the need for strike aircraft to reach particular Asian capitals, or for long-range submarines that can reach through Indonesia into the East Asian seas. There has also been talk of Australia becoming a “muscular regional power”, although the reasons for Australia developing that way were rather less than clear.

    These hawkish statements do not go unnoticed in the region. They send mixed signals about Australia’s commitment to regional security. And they can also serve to promote a regional arms race that’s clearly not in Australia’s national interest. Earlier statements about Australia increasing its submarine force may well have led to Indonesia also seeking more submarines.

    Budgetary Problems

    Even if the “hawks” were to prevail in this great defence debate, it’s unlikely that the Australian Government could sustain the necessary real growth in defence spending. The Australian economy is moving into recession, and low growth rates are predicted for the next few years.

    The Rudd government made an election commitment to maintain real growth in defence spending of 3.0 per cent per annum for the next 15 years. This would mean a much higher share of the national “cake” going to Defence. However, it’s now unlikely with all the other pressures on government, including the economic stimulus, health, education and welfare programmes already announced.

    The recession provides a good excuse for government to walk back from many current commitments – something will have to give. And in the final analysis, there are fewer votes in Defence than in other Federal Government programmes.

    Seeking Regional Views?

    Senior officers from ONA visited Singapore in recent weeks as part of a quick trip around Southeast Asia. This may have been a coincidence, but the trip might also have been a last attempt to explore regional strategic thinking before the Defence White paper. Let’s hope for the sake of both Australia and the region, the views they took away were more in line with those of the region itself rather than with those of the hawks back in Australia.

    In resolving the current defence debate, Australia might do more to heed views from the region on the region’s own strategic future. It might also take more notice of the regional reaction to hawkish statements from “down under”.

    About the Author

    Sam Bateman is Senior Fellow with the S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies (RSIS), Nanyang Technological University. He is a former Australian naval officer who has previously held senior positions in the strategic policy areas of the Department of Defence in Canberra. 

    Categories: Commentaries / Maritime Security

    Last updated on 09/10/2014

    Back to top

    Terms of Use | Privacy Statement
    Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
    This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
    OK
    Latest Book
    CO09040 | The Great Australian Defence Debate: Is China a Threat?

    Commentary

    In advance of a Def ...
    more info