It is right in principle to protect innocent shipping. It is directly in our national interests to have oil and other commodities flowing through the strait, not least because some of our own oil travels that route. And it is a legitimate part of our alliance with the US and our deep strategic friendship with Britain.
Of course, there is risk involved. But the risk is reasonable and everything in this world involves risk. There is a deep risk in not supporting international efforts to keep vital waterways open and leaving our allies unsupported in a mission that is right in itself.
My guess is the Morrison government will accede to Secretary of State Mike Pompeo’s request. It is difficult to imagine that in such a familiar and well-advanced setting as AUSMIN that the Americans would have been encouraged to make such a request so publicly if they were likely to be turned down.
After all, it is no secret that Washington would have liked us to engage in our own freedom of navigation exercise in the South China Sea. But it has never made a high-profile public request at the secretary of state level in this kind of setting because it knows Canberra doesn’t want to engage in such an exercise.
Washington never embarrasses Canberra with a specific public request that is seriously unwelcome.
The risk in the proposed operation is that Iran might fire on an Australian ship. But we would be undertaking this activity hand-in-glove with the Americans and the British and others. That would diminish risk. And we would have our own rules of engagement.
Scott Morrison is right to distinguish this possible escort duty from other disputes with Iran over its nuclear activities.
The two are related, of course. The nuclear matter is the basic reason there are sanctions against Iran in the first place. But Iran’s activities in seizing innocent civilian oil tankers are completely unacceptable and strike at the heart of international commerce and free passage of ships.
We desperately need these norms to be upheld. Given our geographic position we, perhaps more than anyone else, need them to be upheld. We want the Americans committed to freedom of navigation in our region. Even the British have conducted a freedom of navigation operation in the South China Sea, which sailed within 12 nautical miles of disputed features claimed by the Chinese. That is more than we have done.
In the Middle East we have for years been involved in anti-pirate activities. Our navy is so wickedly small that even having one ship on more or less continuous deployment is a big drain on our operating resources. Under the so-called rule of three, for the navy to deploy one ship effectively ties up three, as at any given time one ship is always recuperating from operations and one is always preparing or on the way to operations, even as one is actually deployed.
Nonetheless, we have a navy capable of making a contribution. We could also send surveillance aircraft or other ancillary and supporting components. But we are the 13th or so biggest economy in the world. We have global interests. We are a centrally important ally of the US and the deployment serves our direct and indirect interests.
Therefore, we should do it and do it properly by sending an Australian warship.
Gaza starvation photographs tell a thousand lies
I’ve been into Gaza and seen real suffering. I’ve also seen enormous quantities of aid the UN refuses to distribute. When humanitarian systems are paralysed by politics and ideology, it’s the most vulnerable who pay the price.
Tariff take-down? Appeals court challenges Trump’s powers
Hours before Donald Trump’s tariff deadline arrives, a case heard in the federal appeals court today could result in the levies being struck down.
Australia should respond positively to the US request for help in ensuring the safe passage of shipping in the Strait of Hormuz.