|
|
|
National Observer Home > No. 42 - Spring 1999 > Book Review Australia's Security in the 21st CenturySydney, Allen & Unwin, 1999, 273 pages and index. This collection of essays is useful for those wishing to examine current Australian defence strategies. The writers set out a range of views, and they include Dr. David Horner, Dr. David Lee, Dr. Thomas-Durell Young, Dr. Craig Snyder and Dr. Stewart Woodman amongst others. Central to the problems discussed is the fact that Australian defence expenditure has fallen well short of expectations. It is a matter of general knowledge that, for example, the number of Australian combat troops available is exiguous. The matter is exacerbated by the high cost of complex modern defence equipment. The advanced weaponry used by the United States, for example, is so expensive that its purchase, even in small quantities, exhausts funds needed for the maintenance of <<Selection in Document>>the basic structure. In the light of this fact there is now more than usual difficulty in the allocation of funds. In this context much of the debate about the merits of forward defence planning and rear-line defence within Australian is somewhat academic, since Australia's armed forces are not sufficient for either purpose. Nonetheless this collection of essays may be recommended. They raise serious issues for those who are interested in Australia's security. An exception is an essay on "alternative security strategies" by Associate Professor Dalby (from Canada) and Mr. David Sullivan. What are sometimes put forward as "critical security studies" or "alternative security strategies" cause concern as to the real motives of their proponents. For example, the essay here in question contains much simplistic reasoning — for example, the basic parameters of Australian international relations are said to have been established "in terms of a combination of fear and dependence on great and powerful friends". The authors see the Cold War in terms of "a global great power rivalry" rather than as a defence against communist threats, and perhaps this says sufficient as to the relevance of the authors' views. It is hence not surprising that the authors are unduly dismissive of A.N.Z.U.S. — although, of course, that alliance had its intended limitations, one is properly suspicious of the views of those who take criticisms of it too far. It is not surprising that the "alternative strategies" put forward in the Dalby-Sullivan analysis involve curious reasoning. For example, in justification of a strategy of "neutrality" it is put forward that with neutrality "Australia could reshape its forces to take advantage of its large spaces and its distance from any likely threat," hardly a useful suggestion. And in favour of "non-violent" social or civilian defence it is said by the authors: "Social defence arguments suggest that a carefully planned and rehearsed strategy of active non-cooperation with an invader offers a deterrent to a potential aggressor that is both much cheaper and less dangerous than a military build-up." Indeed, less dangerous to whom? It need hardly be pointed out with what pleasure the Japanese in 1941 would have viewed an Australian defence policy of this kind. There is, after all, a point when the untenable becomes the ridiculous, and this collection of essays would have been improved if the Dalby-Sullivan article had been omitted. I. C. F. Spry National Observer No. 42 - Spring 1999 |
