{"id":27197,"date":"2016-06-17T06:00:55","date_gmt":"2016-06-16T20:00:55","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/?p=27197"},"modified":"2016-06-17T09:40:21","modified_gmt":"2016-06-16T23:40:21","slug":"amiable-defence-debate-meets-china","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.aspistrategist.ru\/amiable-defence-debate-meets-china\/","title":{"rendered":"Amiable defence debate meets China"},"content":{"rendered":"
<\/p>\n
The defence discussion in the Australia election is calm and agreeable in tone\u2014except for China.<\/span><\/p>\n The Turnbull government doesn\u2019t want to push too hard on the South China Sea, while the Labor opposition is more gung-ho.<\/span><\/p>\n And how much is China threatening \u2018serious economic consequences\u2019 if Australia follows the US show-and-go lead in the South China Sea?<\/span><\/p>\n Apart from that, agreement and good humour prevailed when the Government and Opposition sat down to \u2018argue\u2019 defence policy.<\/span><\/p>\n The National Press Club debate was more a friendly discussion between the Defence Minister, Senator Marise Payne, and the Opposition\u2019s shadow Defence Minister, Senator Stephen Conroy. As Senator Conroy said in his concluding remarks, the debate demonstrated \u2018an overwhelming degree of bipartisanship.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n Even the apprehensions and anxieties about China are a matter of tacit consensus between the Coalition and Labor.<\/span><\/p>\n The public difference on China is a matter of degree: how hard should Australia go to demonstrate its overflight and sailing rights in the South China Sea?<\/span><\/p>\n Senator Conroy said standing instructions don\u2019t allow the Australian Defence Force to do a Freedom of Navigation operation in the South China Sea\u2014it\u2019s a government decision. And so far, no decision has been made and no such instruction issued.<\/span><\/p>\n The shadow Defence Minister repeated that a Labor government would authorise such operations to challenge the \u2018absurd building of artificial islands on top of submerged reefs.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n He said Australia should act against \u2018destabilising behaviour\u2019 because \u2018the international rules system is under threat.\u2019 Cop that, China.<\/span><\/p>\n On Freedom of Navigation ops in the South China Sea, Senator Payne said Australia \u2018won\u2019t flag or comment publicly on future ADF activities.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n Then she got a second chance at the South China Sea in a later question from the Xinhua correspondent; a sign of the times that the only non-Oz media question came from China\u2019s news agency.<\/span><\/p>\n Senator Payne told Xinhua:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2018Australia will continue to maintain its position of supporting freedom of navigation, freedom of overflight according to international law in all of our activities. And that includes the South China Sea. It\u2019s quite clear that amongst the competing claims there is an impact on relationships, an impact on stability within the region\u2026We\u2019re not in the business of commenting publicly in advance on specific details of future ADF activities.\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n The beauty of the not-comment-in-advance stance is the wriggle room it gives Canberra in Beijing. The wriggle can even be taken as a wink that Australia won\u2019t follow the US lead.<\/span><\/p>\n Such wriggle space is necessary, according to Senator Conroy, because China could be leaning on Australia economically, using the recently signed Australia\u2013China free trade agreement:<\/span><\/p>\n \u2018I was very disturbed to see a report recently that the Chinese government, when Mr Turnbull visited Beijing, said that if Australia was to engage in a Freedom of Navigation operation [in the South China Sea] that there will be serious economic consequences for them. I can\u2019t confirm that\u2019s true. I just observe that I read that report. I find that a very disturbing way to do business. If that was the case, that sort of bullying needs to be stood up to. A free trade agreement is meant to work as a free trade agreement, not be political leverage to force other outcomes and acquiescence and obsequiousness.\u2019<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n Senator Payne was asked about Kim Beazley\u2019s<\/span> view<\/span><\/a> that a Trump Presidency would force Australia to immediately re-do the 2016 Defence White Paper.<\/span><\/p>\n The first jovial response from the Minister: \u2018Kim just loves White Papers, that\u2019s all. There\u2019s never enough White Papers for Kim.\u2019<\/span><\/p>\n She then went on to sing the hymn about the primacy of the alliance. Australia will work with whoever is President of the US. Amen.<\/span><\/p>\n