Here are some positive outcomes from the Chinese Communist Party’s descent into North Korean-style insult and abuse: Australians get to see first-hand the entity we are dealing with and Beijing’s local useful idiots are tested to see how far they will defend the indefensible behaviour of their patron.
Leaders in New Zealand, Britain, the US, Taiwan and elsewhere supported Australia unbidden. They realise the CCP’s treatment of Australia will be meted out to them if, like us, they refuse to accept a silenced, subordinate status.
There is a consensus that Australia must diversify its trade markets, a view shared by many exporters who are reassessing the risk of doing business with China. A year ago, that reality was rejected by many.
Scott Morrison saw that a line had been crossed, necessitating a strong response. That nixes a disposition of many Canberra mandarins that masterful inactivity and saying nothing is somehow a clever way to deal with Beijing.
Decades of diplomatic nuance in our China relationship have delivered nothing. Saying what is authentically Australian and defending our national values just may work.
There will be senior CCP officials viewing the arrival of “wolf warrior” diplomacy as a disaster for China’s position in the world.
During the past year we have seen some remarkable leaks from China, exposing document troves about the mistreatment of ethnic minorities and the botched early response to COVID-19. There are many in China appalled at the party’s behaviour.
Regrettably, Beijing is not about to change direction. Our government knows that and so does Labor. Australia is well placed to drive a coherent, bipartisan response to China’s bullying and likely to get popular support and international backing.
Can China be peacefully persuaded to behave as a responsible member of the global community? The government’s strategic update in July tactfully says that conventional war, “while still unlikely, is less remote than in the past”. The strategy unveiled a major new effort to increase the range and hitting power of the Australian Defence Force.
On Tuesday, Defence Minister Linda Reynolds announced that Australia had agreed with the US to develop and test a “hypersonic cruise missile prototype”. On any day not afflicted with China’s Foreign Ministry tweeting a fake image of an Australian soldier slitting a child’s throat, the announcement would have received more attention.
Hypersonic cruise missiles fly at speeds above mach 5 — that is, five times the speed of sound. Air-breathing cruise missiles, which fly like aircraft, have been tested to speeds of mach 9.6. Russia, China and the US want to field these weapons quickly.
The speed of the weapon means they have vast ranges. As Reynolds says, hypersonic missiles are potentially a game changer, adding more deterrence weight to our defence force and ensuring that an adversary will have to deal with that risk thousands of kilometres from our shores.
The defence strategic update allocated $9.3bn to “high-speed, long-range strike and missile defence”. It is a fundamental reset to Australian defence thinking, and central to it is a joint effort with the US. Our biggest strategic challenge is to do everything we can to keep the US active in the Indo-Pacific and the Chinese military as far away from us as possible. That means keeping the alliance active and future focused.
Australian researchers have been working on hypersonic vehicles for 15 years. Canberra and Washington should fast-track this collaboration. The right question to ask is: what can be delivered in two to five years, not in a decade? People can be a squeamish when it comes to talking about weapons development. Surely one lesson from the Brereton investigation into the special forces is that we need to be clear-sighted about what we are doing. Defence is not there for parades.
Potentially linked to the hypersonic cruise missile plan is the idea Australia will look to produce domestically “complex munitions” — code for missiles. The fastest way to do that would be to team with a US or possible European manufacturer. The lesson from COVID-19 is that we need to make our military supply chains more secure. In modern conflict the first item to fall into short supply (after trained people) is missiles. The government needs to look at radical options to get things moving quickly rather than plod through a decade’s worth of development and procurement.
Two footnotes to this discussion of hypersonic weapons. First, there is a view that China thinks Australia is acquiring the wrong defence equipment and that its aircraft (and indeed Russian aircraft) are superior.
This is wrong. I have met quite a number of People’s Liberation Army generals through the years. They envy the military capability we extract from the US alliance and a force of 90,000 regulars and reserves. If China didn’t rate our military, its officials wouldn’t demand so relentlessly that we abandon the US alliance.
Chinese combat aircraft are improving but suffer from critical capability deficiencies in engine and stealth technology, among others, and are no match yet for the F-35 joint strike fighter and the linked systems of the wider defence force. This is one reason Beijing spies on our defence and industry base so actively.
Footnote two: Last financial year the Australian Strategic Policy Institute received 3 per cent of its funding from the Australian defence industry. Some of our critics seem as opposed to a strong Australian military as much as they are prepared to forgive Beijing’s aggressive posturing.
The funding has no impact on our analysis any more than substantial defence and industry funding does to most of Australia’s universities. ASPI would have no value to government, parliament or defence if it did not provide a strong element of policy contestability. One test of credibility is that shutting down ASPI is demand No 10 on the Chinese embassy’s 14-point grievance list.
The truth hurts the CCP. In these difficult times, independently minded policy research matters more than ever.
Peter Jennings is executive director of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute and a former deputy secretary for strategy in the Defence Department.
More Coverage
Angry Ange digging his own grave
The Australian’s tenure as Spurs has the same stench as his final days as Socceroos manager.
Diversity not on agenda in leftist echo chambers
The fact is there is more genuine political debate on Sky News in Australia and Fox News in the US than there is on the ABC or at the various taxpayer-funded literary festivals in Australia.