Augustine\u2019s Laws<\/em><\/a>, knows full well that defence procurement is a fraught business straining the capacities even of superpowers. There are always problems in industries that push at the technological frontier to deliver final products in relatively small numbers. Despite the high total project costs for the submarines and F-35s, I don\u2019t think Australian defence spending is outrageous. Nor is it quite as immune from cuts as Mark thinks: the cuts are just undertaken with greater sleight of hand.<\/p>\nA few words then about free-riding. Does free-riding allow some nations to coast while others struggle? Yes. And the various Western alliances have\u2014over time\u2014all manifested a degree of free-riding by smaller parties upon their larger brethren as opportunities to do so arose. Free-riding is usually justified by a belief that \u2018we can\u2019t make a difference\u2019. In reality, the bigger the ally, the more difference it can make. Australia can bring much more to its major ally than New Zealand can. And free-riding\u2014despite its name\u2014has costs. In the short term it leads to isolation from the decision-making processes of one\u2019s allies. Over the longer-term it does little to get a country the world it most wants: it\u2019s a recipe for less effort, not a different effort. Australia should aim to have a strategy whereby it contributes weight in order to get the world it wants.<\/p>\n
Finally to the conspiracy of silence. Mark\u2019s perfectly right that the major parties think about defence in similar ways: they\u2019re both attached to the ANZUS alliance (and to the concept of being allied); they\u2019re both strong supporters of a capable, well-equipped ADF; and they\u2019re both willing to fund that defence force at about 1.5-2% of GDP. They disagree on some things\u2014see Rudd\u2019s insistence that he was returning Australian defence to its classic settings after a period of post-9\/11 waywardness\u2014but by and large the history of Defence White Papers since 1976 shows the major parties think about the strategic environment, Australia\u2019s role, and defence procurement in largely similar ways.<\/p>\n
I\u2019m not sure, though, that such bipartisanship means that more basic questions are deliberately neglected. In large measure it reflects a similar level of bipartisanship amongst the broader community. The level of popular support for ANZUS, for example, has traditionally run at about 70%. In democracies, majorities of about 70% usually get what they want. At the moment they seem pretty happy with the defence effort they\u2019ve got. I don\u2019t think Australia will be heading down the Kiwi road anytime soon.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
In his recent post here on The Strategist, Professor Mark Beeson raises a number of questions which, he believes, we usually overlook in our rush to address more immediate policy debates. His central question\u2014from the …<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":11,"featured_media":23920,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_mi_skip_tracking":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[44,26,73,369],"class_list":["post-23919","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-general","tag-australian-defence-force","tag-defence-spending","tag-new-zealand","tag-nzdf"],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\n
Is defending ourselves worthwhile? | The Strategist<\/title>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\n\n\n\n\n\t\n\t\n\t\n