The Australian Republican doctrine is built upon, amongst others, principles of independence, autonomy and the belief that Australian solutions to Australian issues are superior. Australian foreign policy has been afflicted for a century by the "Great and Powerful Friends" doctrine. This foreign policy has been a constant failure, has weakened Australian military capability and is not compatible with Republican principles. Consequently the Australian military needs revision.
Australian Republican Doctrine
Australian Republican doctrine is founded on several basic principles that have wider application. These principles have been the basis for Australian Republican doctrine for the last two hundred years and serve as a powerful conduit for individual, cultural and political growth. They are;
- Independence
- Autonomy
- Inviolable Rights
- Equity under the Law
- Australian solutions to Australian issues are superior.
- Self-confidence on the global stage.
The ... underlying reality about Australian foreign policy in the contemporary era is that we have very little capacity to advance our interests, however defeined, by relying on our great and powerful friends. Those days are over. Our great and powerful friends have interests of their own.Evans is incorrect, those days never even existed. One of the worst aspects of the foreign policy is how it defrays Australian military self-sufficiency. The most critical example of this was in 1942 when Australia found itself without a navy to challenge for blue water superiority. Australia also lacked an air-force that could defend Australia. In 1942 the Royal Navy was tied up in Europe. The Australian Navy was an ad-hoc collection of cruisers that were not capable of command and control, they were themselves designed to slot into a larger British capital ship group. In terms of aerial projection, Australia was defending New Guinea with one fighter squadron. Australia was undefended by any Australian fighter aircraft - fortunately the US supplied a couple of their squadrons to defend Darwin until 1943. Richard Williams had established an Australian aerospace industry which ultimately produced the CAC Boomerang "Panic Fighter" in late 1942. Without that foundation, the Boomerang would never have appeared. Williams had to fight with the Navy and Singapore for funding. In the 1930s, the Australian Government indulged in defence on the cheap, and what money it did allocate to the Australian military, it gave eighty percent of it to the Navy and Singapore. Both the Navy and Singapore were dismal flops in WWII because they were designed around our "Great and Powerful Friend". Force Multipliers Modern capability and projection is a networked affair of multiple inputs that sum to be greater than the parts. Until Australia invests fully in force multipliers it will be a second rate force unable to operate independently or sustainably. What is a force multiplier? From the Fundamentals of Australian Aerospace Power;
Force Multipliers provide external capabilities to increase the effectiveness of combat systems.In an aerospace context, Air to Air Refueling (AAR) is an example of this. It allows an airborne combat system to increase its endurance, and consequently its capability. Airborne Early Warning and Control (AEW&C) is another example. Space based communications and surveillance systems another. These are areas that the Australian Defence Force (ADF) is highly deficient. Our tankers are converted 707 from the 1960s. We are only just getting AEW&Cs, and we have no space based capability. We are dependent upon the United States leasing us space capability when we need it. Both major factions - Liberal and Labor - place heavy weight in their political defence doctrine on the United States leasing us what we need when we want it. Even small and simple systems. This is not unlike the Australian Government in the 1930s expecting the Royal Navy to sail into the Pacific en-masse when needed. Behind The Times The lack of high-tech systems has been an ongoing issue for Australian combat systems. From "Highest Traditions", an example of an Australian Canberra bomber in Vietnam not having the latest technology putting the crew in peril;
[They] ... were flying ... close to the Loation border ... just as they turned left ofr the attack, the sky to their immediate 2 o'clock position lit up with angry fireballs of flak. .... A hurried call to their United States ground radar controller that they were taking heavy AAA solicited the query, "Roger Magpie, confirm that your ECM gear is on?". The navigator quickly countered: "What ECM? We're a bloody Canberra!"ECM is electronic counter measures that jams the enemy systems that try to get a firing solution on the aircraft. Weakened Australia Another issue that is ongoing with Australian procurement of American weapon systems is that there are so many restrictions placed on it. Every US Senator puts their own little piece of legislation on export of military technology so that Australia is unable to procure complete systems. The consolidation of the US Defence industry also means that Australia's bartering position against these giant American firms is weakened - to the point that Australia has trouble getting source code from firms like Lockheed Martin, Boeing and General Dynamics. The large US Defence firms also reduce Australian engineers to integrators of American technology. Of all the defence projects mentioned in the 2003 Defence Budget, only one partnership - between Australia and the UK for a missile system - involved genuine technology sharing. The rest were integration projects. A Military Doctrine The "Great and Powerful friends" foreign policy doctrine is a meme that must die. It is the complete anti-thesis of Australian Republican doctrine. The "Great and Powerful friends" is dependent, subservient, weakening and a good example of the Australian political cringe. So that both major factions do not rely on this reflexive cringe any longer, it is important that the Australian military become a capable force based on independent strategic doctrine, autonomous capability and sustainable projection power. The only way this can be achieved is if Australia creates a technologically perfect force that matches our regional needs. We are not alone in this need. Many of our Asian neighbours are also disenfranchised from American foreign policy and the US Defence industries. Japan recently changed a law that prohibited their defence industry from exporting military technology. This was so they could join in projects that required technology sharing. The oppurtunities are there for Australia to partner in new technology sharing defence projects to fill our capability and projection gaps. Australian military spending on defence needs to increase by forty percent. This will add approximately six billion to the defence budget. This is an affordable increase that must - and I repeat - must go to research and development. Not toward procurement of American weapon systems. Australia must develop its own technologies or partner with like-minded countries in genuine technology sharing projects with this money. It is not for useless big ticket items that the Navy and Army lust after. The six billion is a subsidy to applied science and engineering which is essential in any high-tech economy. This coupled with business managers that can turn an R&D dollar into a product/service dollar it makes for a powerful economy. Capitalism is geared toward technology, and it rewards innovative business models that leverage technology. The dot-com boom of the 1990s was on the back of the internet. A classic disruptive technology. The internet came from US Military engineering investment in DARPA and European applied science investment in CERN. Conclusion The sustained funding of military technology and military research and development will give the Australian Defence Force the systems it requires to become an independent, autonomous and sustainable force. It will remove the anti-Republican "Great and Powerful Friends" doctrine from Australian foreign policy. Finally it will advance Australia away from a commodity-based "hole in the ground" economy toward a high-tech economy that has an increased possibility of supplying the world with the next disruptive technology. cam
