For Canada to match that, on a per-capita basis, the Harper government would have to dole out close to $42 billion instead of the $20 billion that it plans to spend on defence.
Fat chance of that happening, of course. An increase in defence spending of more than one or two billion dollars a year by Ottawa is most unlikely, especially with an election in the offing.
The reason that Australia has opened its wallet so wide with little dissent can be summed up in one word: China.
Despite concluding a huge trade deal with Beijing only last month, Australia feels compelled to continue ramping up defence spending because it feels threatened by its proximity to the blue-water navy and other medium and long-range strike capabilities that Beijing has been quickly building.
Thanks, ironically, to massive amounts of cash that China has forked over in exchange for massive amounts of Australian iron ore, Canberra has been buying big, expensive warships and a formidable air attack and logistics capability that dwarf anything Canada’s few hawks could imagine.
To explain the national consensus on making investment in the military a priority, while other government programs have been slashed, Mark Thomson and Andrew Davies of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute pointed to a large, Australia-centric world map that dominates the wall of the conference room in their office.
To the north of Oz lies the Strait of Malacca, the choke point through which so much global commerce sails. Beyond the strait, and looming over everything is China, with 1.4 billion people, ambitions to dominate the western Pacific and an economy that has been in overdrive for years and may or may not become a juggernaut.
It is a little known fact that Vancouver is only 2,000 kilometres further away from China than Brisbane is. But the Second World War shaped the Australian psyche in a way that Canada never experienced. Japanese warplanes conducted more than 100 raids over northern Australia during the Second World War. Japanese mini-subs penetrated Sydney Harbour, leading to a wild hunt before they were eliminated. At the same time Australian troops defended their homeland from the Japanese just over the horizon in Papua New Guinea.
Another overarching strategic reality is that while Canada borders the United States, Australia is nearly 12,000 kilometres from the West’s global guardian. Like Canada, Australia joined the U.S. in both World Wars and Korea, but Canada sat out Vietnam and the second Gulf War while Australia, despite considerable opposition at home, took part.
“If I lived in the northern approaches to the continental United States, I would probably be very happy spending one per cent on defence because at the end of the day what is the worst that can happen?” said Thomson, who is ASPI’s economics expert.
Quickly finishing his colleague’s thought, Davies, who is the institute’s director of research, added: “You would have Americans on your territory defending you.”
Neil James, executive director of the Australian Defence Association used blunter language to describe how Canada has ended up being almost dead last among western nations in defence spending list while his country seems destined to end up third in defence spending behind the U.S. and Britain.
“In a way, Canada has been a bludger,” James said, using an Australian term used to describe a loafer or sponger who avoids work or responsibility. “You live off your bigger neighbour next door.”
Canada gets away with it because “it is inconceivable that the U.S. would ever allow an existential threat to Canada whereas with us, it could happen,” he said.
“Canada and Australia are a lot alike, but geo-strategically they are totally different. Until Canada faces a major strategic scare you won’t have a serious debate about defence spending. Even then you would need great political leadership because you have always expected the U.S. to pay for your defence.”
Pondering the question of why Canada has taken so long to declare its intention to buy 65 fifth-generation F-35 stealth fighters, when Australia decided years ago that it would buy 100 of them, Thomson said that beyond the jet’s capabilities, “what we have to worry about is remaining serious allies of the United States to encourage them to stay committed to playing a role in our part of the world. Buying F-35s and P-8s (anti-submarine warfare) aircraft is a great way to do that.
“I think a significant mishandling of our relationship with China would carry a political cost. The only thing worse than that would be a mishandling of the strategic relationship with the United States.”
Another significant factor was that “Australia’s defence spending and conducting military operations are conflated with Australians’ sense of identity,” he said.
Next year will be the 100th anniversary of the ANZAC’s landings at Gallipoli. As with the Canadian experience at Vimy Ridge, Australians regard Gallipoli as the baptism of fire that forged their nation. But Canada’s Vimy celebrations will feel like a modest memorial gathering compared to the huge explosion of national pride and patriotism that will attend the Gallipoli centenary in Australia and New Zealand.
While the security dilemma posed by an ascendant China remains paramount, Australia is also spending tens of billions of dollars on military procurement because, unlike Canada, it is a regional power. Military operations that Australia might have to undertake without U.S. help include dealing with renewed instability in states that are “between fragile and moribund” such as East Timor, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Fiji, Andrew Davies said.
And then there is Indonesia, which has often had serious differences with Australia over Timor and other issues.
“The United States is not going to buy into a fight between Australia and Indonesia,” Davies said. “But I believe that that is not worth worrying about because these days everyone in Southeast Asia is looking north.”
Still, if problems arise closer to home “and we find ourselves in conflict with one of our neighbouring states, where the United States steps aside, we want to have the ability to comprehensively overmatch them to avoid having them come into conflict with us,’ Mark Thomson said. “These are not problems that Canada has.”
Original Article
Source: canada.com/
Author: Matthew Fisher
No comments:
Post a Comment